
CIass_ .-^ ' ' •• . 
Book ^___L_LzL^; u 






SPEECHES 




HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 



MADE IX THE 



HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES, 



rUFTY-FOURTH COXGRESS. 



1 Foreign and Domestic Commerce Greatest under Protective Tarift- 

i^ecembcr 12, 1895. On President's Message. 
S. Alloption of Rules, Fifty -fourth Congress— 

Jauiiary 23, 1896. 
S. Stctional Hates must Sometime End— 

March 24, 1896. Removal ol' .Disabilities on Army and Aavy 
Officers. 

4. Protective Tarif Best for El venue— 

December 8,' isyfi. On Presidents Message. 

5. Picorganization of the TJidon and Central Pacific Eailroads— 

January 7, 1897. 

6. Vi'ill of Legal Voter Suprem". Law— 

January 21, 1897. \ ost vs. Tucker. 

7. War Widows' Pensions— „ , .,. • , ^ 

February 9, 1897. On Veto Message of the President. 

8. Free Homesteads— liightful Ownership to the Soil— 

February 19, 1897. 

9. Bimetallism Impossible M'ithout International Agreement— 

Tebruary 26, 1897. On International Money Coulsrence. 









/ 






^^* 



"^095 



OCi' 



President's Message. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. GAL IT 8H A A. GEOW, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

In the House of Kepresentatives, 

Thursday, December 12, 1895. 

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having under consideration the President's annual message to Congress- 
Mr. GROW said: 

Mr. Chairman: The President, in Ms annual message to this 
Congress, says: 

By command of the people a customs-revenue system, designed for the 
protection and benefit of favored classes at the expense of the great mass of 
our countrymen, and wliieh, while inefficient for the purpose of revenue, 
curtailed our trade relations and impeded our entrance to the markets ot 
the world, has been superseded by a tariff policy which in principle is based 
upon a denial of the right of the Government to obstruct the avenues to our 
people's cheap living or lessen their comfort and contentment. 

When stated concisely, this paragraph means simply that a pro- 
tective tariff has been superseded by a free trade one, called by 
its friends a tariff for revenue only. The President gives us no 
information as to the practical operations or result of this new 
system which has superseded the old one. Disregarding the uni- 
form ciTstom in annual messages, he fails to state the amount of 
the receipts and expenditures of the Treasury for the last fiscal 
year, or in fact for any year. He contents himself with the decla- 
ration contained in tliis paragraph, which is the only reference in 
his message to the revenue system now in force, or as to the receipts 
and expenditures of the Glover nment. He merely asserts that a 
"system of customs revenue inefficient for the purpose of reve- 
nue," which "impeded our entrance to the markets of the world" 
and " obstructed the avenues to our people's cheap living," has 
been superseded by command of the people. 

RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. 

Congi-ess is left, therefore, to ascertain for itself as best it can 
the real condition of the Treasury— its receipts and expenditures— 
since the close of the fiscal year 1894. The President in his annual 
message in December, 1894. informed Congress that the deficit in 
the Treasury for the fiscal vear ending June 30. 1894. was $69,803.- 
260.58. The report of the Bureau of Statistics for 1895 shows that 
the deficit for the fiscal vear ending June 30. 1895. was $43,805.- 
223.18. The daily statements issued by the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury show that since July 1, 1895, to December 10 the deficit is 

1932 1 



§18,545.720.04. So the receipts of the Treasury from all ordinary 
Bources since June 30, 1893. have been §131, 354. 203. 80 less than its 
expenditures, including nothing of what may be appropriated in 
deficiency bills to be passed this session. By' the daily statements 
as to the condition of the Treasury the deficit continues at the 
average rate of about $4,000,000 per month. In these two years of 
deficit there was paid each year in pensions $18,000,000 less than in 
1893. The President informs us in this message that '• the bonded 
indebtedness " of the Government has been increased $162,315,400. 
So it would seem that this new system of finance is not a great 
success, though claimed by its friends to be one for revenue only. 

PROTECTIVE AND REVENUE TARIFFS. 

What is the history of the old one that has been thus super- 
seded. It began with the passage, in February, 1861, of what is 
known as the Morrill tariff. That was framed avowedly upon 
the principle that while raising the revenue necessary for the sup- 
port of the Government, duties should be so adjusted as to pro- 
tect American labor in its competition with the poorly paid labor 
of the world, and to secure as far as possible the supplying of the 
home market by home labor in all cases where climate, soil, and 
business facilities would admit of its being done to advantage. 
This principle controlled in all the tariff legislation from that time 
until March 4, 1893. Every year after 1865— that being the close 
of the war — the receipts have exceeded the expenditures, and in 
addition to paying the current exi^enses of the Government two- 
thirds of the national debt of $2,700,000,000 in 1867 has been paid, 
and no money was borrowed save the $95,500,000 for the purpose 
of resumption of specie payments in 1879. This is a financial 
record unsurpassed in the history of any nation. The following 
table shows the excess of receipts and expenditures of the Gov- 
ernment from 1858 to 1895 inclusive, and the amount of customs 
revenue each year from 1865— the close of the war period: 



Year ended June 30— 


Cu.stoms 
revenue. 


Excess of rev- 
enue over 
expenditure. 


Excess of ex- 
penditure 
over revenue. 


1858 






$37,529,904.43 
15. .584 511 10 


18.59 .J 




1860 : ! ' ' 




Mil _ J. 

1882 ' 


2.5,036.714.50 
+•>> 774 ;363 48 


1863 .1 






1864 1 . 




600,695.870.37 


18i;5 






963 84^^619 33 


18il6_ 


$179,046,651.58 

176.417.S](l.88 
164. +64. 599. .56 
l8(t.(»4S. t-M) li3 
194,,-,:i,s.;!7-1..14 
2116, 270. +08. (15 
216,370.286.77 
188. 089, ,522. 7(1 
lea, 103, 8.33. 69 
157,167,722.35 
148.071,984.61 
130,956.493.07 
130.170.680.20 
137.2.50.047.70 
186.522.0()4.()0 
198, 159, 670. 02 


$37,223,203.07 
133,091.a35.11 

28,297,798.46 
48,078,469.41 

101 . (iOI . 916. 88 
91.1+6.756.(5+ 
96, 588, 904. 89 
43,392,959.3+ 
2,;544,882.30 
13.376.658.26 
29,022,341.83 
30. 340, .577. (i9 
20. 799. .551. 90 
6.879.3(X).93 
t>.5. ss3, 6.5;3. 20 

100,069,404.98 




1867 




1868 




1869 




1870 

1871 : .::: 




1873 

1873 




1874 




Ig75 




1876 




1877 




1878 




1879 




1880 




1881 





Year ended June 30- 



1883_ 
1883. 
1884. 



Customs 
revenue. 



1892. 
1893. 
1894- 



S220, 
•iU. 
195, 
181, 
193. 
-i 217, 
.' 219. 

-! ^^■ 

-I ^■ 

.1 131. 
. 153, 



Excess of rev- 
enue over 
expenditure. 



,810.71 
,441.41 
.(325. .59 
,771.27 
,588.5(5 
,097.69 
,373.63 
,080.59 
,371.97 
,541.96 
,4.53.66 
,()74.39 



Excess of ex- 
penditure 
over revenue. 



.21!;). 53 
,333.18 



Previous to 1861 the tariff of 1846 liad been substantially m 
force, though some changes in it were made ni 18.T3 or IboS and again 
in 1857 Mr. Buchanan's Administration closed March 4, 18bl 
with a deficit in the Treasury every year, amounting at the end ot 
the four years to $75,217,120. Resort was had at that time by the 
Democratic party to borrowing money for current expenses in 
time of peace. Mr. Buchanan's Administration was the last 
Democratic Administration in full control of the executive and 
legislative departments of the Government until Mr. Cleveland s 
and his Administration seems to begin where Mr. Buchanan s lett 
off [Applause and laughter on the Repubhcan side.J 

The Morrill tariff passed by Congress in 1861 was signed by Mr. 
Buchanan. The leaders of the present Democratic party are 
loud in denouncing all protective tariffs as unconstitutional, and 
especially the one passed in 1890. known as the McKinley tariff, 
notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in a unanimous opinion, declaring that act to be consticu- 
tional. The period from 1880 to 1892 under these two protective 
tariff systems was one of unexampled prosperity, and for develop- 
ment of material resources and growth of industries unequaled m 
any like period in the history of nations. The receipts into tlie 
Treasury for these thirteen fiscal years from the ordinary sources 
of revenue over and above expenditures were $l-130'Oo7 018 and 
the exports of merchandise over the imports were 3)l,139,bld,J71, 
and the importation of gold over its export was $96,401 21b. 
The gold in the Treasury every year of this period exceeded the 
.SI 00,000.000 reserve and all gold certificates issued. F(Dr the tliree 
years 1888, 1889, and 1890 the average excess was over ipL0.000,0^.U. 

GROWTH OF INDUSTRIES. 

The growth of the mechanical and manufacturing industries as 
shown by the census of 1880 and of 1890, was more than doubled m 
the capital invested and the amount paid to labor, and almost 
double in the value of the products producecl. The abstract ot 
the census of 1890 shows in detail that the capital invested m 1890 
was $8,734,302,699 more than in 1879, and there was paid to labor 
in these same industries $1,335,262,784 more in 18«9 tj^^n m 18-9, 
and thevahieof the products m these industries was .$4,002,8o8,UJ-i 
more in 1889 than in 1879. The farm mortgages created between 
1880 and 1890 had been, January 1, 1890, reduceamore than one-halt. 



CUSTOMS REVENUE. 

The customs receipts during this period were $177,453,964.15 in 
the year 1892, being the lowest, and§2-29,(5(is,584.57 in the year 1890. 

The following table shows the customs revenue for each year 
from 1888 to 1895, inclusive, and the excess of total receipts into 
the Treasury over expenditures: 





Year. 


Customs. 


Excess of 
revenue over 
expenditures. 


ISSS 


$219,091,173.63 
223,832,741.69 


$111,341,273.68 




87, 761. 080. .59 
85,040.271.97 




229,668,584.57 
219,523,2(15.23 
177,452,964.15 
203,355,016.73 
131,818,530.63 
152,158,617.45 


1891 - 


26,838,541.96 


18<t2 


9,914,4.53.66 




2,341,674.29 




*69,8a3.260.58 


1895 


*42,805,233.18 







* Expenditures in excess of revenue. 

Though the McKinley tariff was in force until August, 1894, 
yet the business of the country was so disturbed by the result of 
the election in November, 1893, in anticipation of the change m 
tariff policy, that importations for the fiscal year 1894 were greatly 
restricted and the home production of everything was greatly 
lessened. So that in all fairness in comparing the operations of 
tariffs the fiscal year 1893 should be regarded as the last year of 
the McKinley tariff. The average receipts from duties in the 
fiscal years 1891, 1893, and 1893 were §300,110,062.03. 

FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

The foreign commerce of the country under these two protective 
tariff laws beginning in 1861, which the President claims impeded 
our entrance into the markets of the world, expanded from $1,503,- 
593,404 in 1880 to $1,857,680,610 in 1893, the largest of any year 
in our history. The next largest year was $1,739,397,300. in 
1891— showing that there was no trouble in our entering the mar- 
kets of the world. But the world has no market better than the 
American market. [Applause.] We have a people of 70,000.000 
to-day that consume per capita more than any other people on 
the earth, and which doubles in numbers every thirty years. Ere 
the close of this century of national existence 500.000,000 of people 
will be dwellers upon the soil over which to-day floats the flag of 
our fathers— about one-third of the present population of the 
globe. Why should we open such a market to the products of 
the poverty-stricken labor of the world, thereby excluding our 
own labor from employment in supplying it? 

BUY CHEAPEST WHERE PAY EASIEST. 

One of the President's objections to a protective system is that 
it obstructs the "avenues to our people's cheap living." A man 
in the poorhoiise realizes the President's ideal of cheap living, 
for he lives cheaper than anybody else. [Laughter.] Cheap- 
ness in articles of consumi)tion is not always desirable. Shall 
cheai)ness to the consumer be weighed in the balance against the 
comfort of the home and the happiness of the fii-eside of the pro- 
1932 



ducer? Auytliing sells too cheap that sells for a price that will not 
ive to the'prolucer living wages [Applanse.j « "ttcta of 

S"r.^?^aSi'-t-;^:»^^^ 

ness is not a desirable object. [Applause.) -,,,,, f 

Strike from the tariff all its protective features, and the labor of 
this coimtry must then stand unaided and alone ni its competition 
Si that labor of the worid where homeless poveriy is the sole 
h?r ta^e of the sons of toil. The consumer m all ca^es buys 
cheapest where he pays easiest. The state of things that gives 
S> e JoS^ ^■'^^orer at the highest attamable wages 

fnablls SSt'o pay easier, and thereby he buys cheap^s^, no ma^- 
ter what the nominal price of the article may be. VV itnout em 
Sovmeiit he could not buy at all, and with scant employment he 
Siis b?y caX Vie country that produces for itself the articles 
^nsumed by its people has both the article produced and the 
Sey plid for its'production, instead of having but one of these 
values, as would be the case in buying abroad. 

COMFORT AND CONTENTMENT. 

Upon the comfort of the home depends the l^^Ppi^f f "f^^^^'^..^^" 
side- and by that fireside is reared the generations who ai e to 
control the destinies of the nation . [Applause , Jf i^^i^'P^tic «i 
monarchical governments the great interest m its childien is tnat 
Sevbecoinelood soldiers; but in a fi'ee constitutional govern- 
meiltthe^-eft interest in its children is that they beconie good 
Stizensfo? upon the wisdom of their ballots rests the pillars of 
the Republic [Applause.] Tariff laws affect directly the con- 
StiofaM well-LiSI of laior, and if wisely adjusted will secure 
to it the supplying of the home market as far as possible. 

Mr Chairman, there would be no need of protection in arrang- 
inftiie duty on foreign imports if the laborers of tins country 
wfre'^lt'l tTlive in^he.sa'me way and to r^^^^^^^^ 
sensation as their competitors m other lands. But tney are not 
Sig to do that, and^the patriotism of the ^ountiT ^b iinwnm^^^^ 
that thev should. That is the only reason why m taiift ^egisia 
tton it becomes necessary to guard t^^ Ammcan rn:odu^^^^^^ 
unequal competition with foreign products m then laboi cost. 

With the single paragraph I have ^^ad from the message the 
President dismisses all reference to revenue or to tl?^e leceipts and 
expenditures of the Treasury. His only recommendation foi Con- 
gressional action is to convert five or six l^^^^^^e^^^^lf ^L'^^g'^J^e 
interest-bearing debt into an interest-bearing debt of the same 
Lmount on long-time bonds. [Applause on the Republican side.] 
Tyear ago Ws^•ecommendatiin for Congressional action for he 
ms'^of the country was to allow State banks to ^^^^^^ Pf^*^^^^^;^ 
circulating medium. There is no reference ^ow to that remedy 
I have no idea that this Congress or the next, or any other Con 
gress, unless it is as overwhelmingly Democratic as this «ne is 
Republican, will retire what is known as the g^;ef."J'^^J^^^^^^^ 
interest-bearing debt. [Applause on ^he^^pub ican side ,] We 
have substantiaHy the same currency to-day that has existed tor 
years past, and so long as the receipts exceeded expenditures no 
inconvenience or serious trouble was experienced. 



AMEND NATIONAL BANK ACT. 

But it would be well to retire the Treasury notes of 1890 and 
the silver certificates in some way that would not contract the 
currency. My plan to do that is embraced in a bill offered in the 
last Congress and again introduced in this, the outlines of which 
are embraced in the following sections: 

That all acts or parts of acts which require or authorize the deposit of 
United States bonds to secure circulating bank notes issued by national bank- 
ing associations be, and the same are hereby, amended so that said assr eia- 
tions now organized, or that may hereafter be organized, and any other asso- 
ciation duly organized and incorporated under the laws of any State for doing 
exclusively a banking business, may deposit with the Treasurer of the United 
States, as security for circulating bank notes, in lieu of bonds, Treasury notes 
issued under the act of Julv 14, 1890, or silver certificates issued under the acts 
of February 28, 1878, and Augiist 4, 1886, and March 3, 1887. The association 
making such deposit shall be entitled to receive for each and every ShX) of the 
par value of the Treasury notes or certificates hereinbefore described SHO in 
circulating bank notes of the same kind, form, and description as is now, or 
may be hereafter, provided in the national-bank act for circulating bank 
notes. On the face of each and every note there shall be engraved and 
printed: "Secured by a deposit of money in the Treasury of the United 

Sec. 2. That all the Treasury notes or certificates, as aforesaid, deposited 
as security for circulating bank notes, and upon which bank notes shall have 
been issued, the Treasurer of the United States shall cause said notes and 
certificates to be canceled and destroyed, giving to the association making 
such deposit a receipt for the same, specifying the kind of Treasury notes 
or certificates deposited. 

Sec. 5. That all circulating bank notes issued as aforesaid shall be exempt 
from taxation by or under Federal. State, or municipal authority. 

Sec. 6. That the circulating bank notes issued under this act shall have all 
the legal qualities of the circulating bank notes issued under the national- 
bank act, and their redemption shall be made in like manner. 

By this method some five or six hundred millions of Treasury- 
notes and certificates could be converted into a noninterest-bear- 
ing debt with an indefinite time to pay and without any contrac- 
tion of the currency or increasing the interest-bearing debt of 
the nation. By the report of the Comptroller of the Currency for 
October, 1895, there were 3,715 national banks in existence, with 
an authorized capital of §664,136,915, and 5.066 State banks, with 
a capital of $422,ur)'>.618, making a total banking capital of both 
kinds of $1,086,189,533. This plan would allow a State bank to 
receive circulating notes the same as the national banks do on 
making like deposits in the Treasury. I need not take the time of 
the committee in advocating the system of uniform currency and 
circulating medium as it exists to-day. There is no system of State 
bank issues, I care not how arranged, that can be made a uniform, 
safe circulating medium without a deposit in the United States 
Treasury. The present law requires every national bank to re- 
ceive the issues of every other national bank throughout the 
country in payment of any debt due the bank. Can 3'ou pass a law 
reiiuiring the State banks to thus receive the issues of any and 
all other State banks throughout the country without some such 
deposit? 

Tills plan would leave the present national banking law just as 
it is, except that this kind of [)a])er conld be d(>i)osited instead of 
bonds for security of payment iiiid final redeiniition of circulating 
notes. The ri()v«"'rnm('nt would be resjionsiblc the same as now 
for the redemption of the currency in the hands of the peo])le. 
The currency would be as now uniform everywhere, and of eiiual 
value wherever received, and would be based upon a system 
1932 



wliich would allow of necessary expansion. The character of the 
nationl-bank circulation would remain the same as now, except 
that State banks could participate in it. The advantage ot one 
uniform rule and law against counterfeiting as it exists now saves 
millions of money to the people. Having given my views at the 
last session of Congress, somewhat at length, as to the desn ability 
Sthus amending the national-bank act I will not take up the 
time of the committee in its further discussion now. 

GOLD RESERVE AND ENDLESS CHAIN. 

The sold reserve that the President regards as a weakness in 
the financial management of the Government will continue such 
as long as money must be borrowed for the current expenses of the 

^¥h™^emliess chain" that we hear so much about began with 
what appears to be an endless deiicit [applause o^ the Repub- 
lican side] . and it will continue until thereveiiues of the Govein- 
nent exceed its expenditures. When that is the case why should 
there be any more trouble than there was for fifteen years befoie.^ 
As long as the revenue is less than the receipts I know of no way 
to keep gold in the Treasury. I know of no way m which a man 
canpayhis debts without faking the money out of his^pocket as 
long as it lasts, and giving it to his creditors. If theie is not 
enotigh there to pay his debts, then either he is a bankrupt or his 
cSor is a loser. There has been nothing in the^Treasury except 
gold for the payment of the deficit m revenue, ^^liat was left to 
lav out? Treasury notes and greenbacks. That is a regular 
nTcawber system of finance. [Laughter.] He counted his own 
notes as a fund for the redemption of his debts, and we are doing 
the same thing. Issue promissory paper to-day and say our debt 
is paid . It coines back for what that paper represents, and unless 
we have it we must go into bankruptcy. .^ ^ ;, 

Our paper money, substantially as we have it to-day was no 
troiible^o the Tre/sury of the United States during the time he 
Renublican party controlled its administration. It only began 
with this new system, introduced with tlie incoming of this Admin- 
istration, the same kind tried by pur f athers^ and it has alvv ays 
proved a failure. From the begmning of the Governmer^^t w e 
never have had what is called a free-trade tanff, a tariff toi ley 
enue only, that did not have the same result. Buchanan & Admin- 
istration went to wreckin its finances on the same rock No^^ its 
successor is trying the same experiment, and claims that it has 
done so because of a command by the people. 

COMMANDS OF THE PEOPLE. 

The people after two years of experience of an administration 
with a foreign policy of dishonor to the nation and a home policy 
of ruin to h% industries have issued through the ballot box a new 
mandate with an energy and far-sweeping resii t that I trust tlie 
President in his ofBcial acts will not disregard, though he entu ely 
ignored it in his message. Thirteen repre^sentatives of this once 
gi-eat Democratic party from 30 States of the Union are all that 
can speak for that party on this floor to-day. One only to speak 
foi an New England. One for all the Pacific States. The other 
eleven speak for the remaining States which he north of what iihcd 
to be the old sectional Mason and Dixon's line. Thirty members 



sit upon this floor to-day to sppak for the lion-hearted, unconquera- 
ble Republican party of thr heretofore solid Democratic South 
[Applause on the Republi.an si^lc | The C> .ngressioual district of 
the home of every Democratic Senator in the Senate of the United 
States from either of the 80 States referred to is represented on 
this floor by a Republican. What was tried in the elections of 1894? 

The Democrats say the election of 1892 was a condemnation of 
the McKinley bill. Then was the election of 1894 a condemna- 
tion of this new bill, christened the Wilson-Gorman bill, but 
which the President declared was a child of perfidy and dis- 
honor when it was laid on the steps of the Executive Mansion? 
[Applause and laughter on the Republican side.] Solid Repub- 
lican delegations are now here from a greater number of States 
than ever before. If these so emphatic and sweeping elections 
were not a condemnation by the people of the legislation of the 
last Congress, then it was a condemnation of the Democratic 
partv itself, and that is what I think it was. It was the Demo- 
cratic party itself on trial in the late elections. For it made no 
difference what kind of a Democrat it was. whether a zealous or 
lukewarm advocate of this new system of customs revenue, or 
a Democrat who had opposed it, the political cyclone swept away 
all kinds of Democrats alike. . 

The Democratic party was on trial in the elections ot last year, 
and the people issued a new mandate. Before the election lead- 
ing Democrats, including the President, proclaimed that their 
legislative acts in the last Congress were only steps m the right 
direction, which they proposed to continue until the last vestige 
of protection was swept from the statute book. The new com- 
mand of the people comes to-day: "Not another step m that 
direction." [Applause on the Republican side.] It is a fair warn- 
ing for the Democratic party to retire and make repairs for the 
future. Hoping that the President in his official acts will not dis- 
regard this new command, though he entirely ignored it in his 
message, I trust when he has leisure to attend to pubhc affairs 
he will give heed to it. [Laughter and loud applause on the 
Republican side.] 



Count a Quorum of Members Present not Voting. 



SPEECH 



HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, 

OP PENNSYLVANIA, 

In the House of Eepresentatives, 

On adoption of the rules for the Fifty fourth Congress, 
January 23, 1S96. 

The House having under consideration the adoption of the rules for the 
Pifty-fourth Congress- 
Mr. GROW said: 

Mr. Speaker: Every bill which shall have passed the House 
and the Senate must, before it becomes a lavs^, be presented to the 
President. How must it be passed? That is the whole question. 
Passed under such rules as the House and Senate may determine 
for their proceedings. Those proceedings are controlled by three 
conditions in the Constitution, and there are no others. 

First, if the President disapproves a bill and returns it to either 
Hoiise, two-thirds of the House on a yea-and-nay vote must vote 
for it or it fails to become a law. And in impeachment trials in 
the Senate, in order to seciire conviction two-thirds of those pres- 
ent must vote for it. 

One other provision in relation to how the proceedings of either 
House shall be conducted. One-fifth of those present can have 
the yeas and nays recorded on any question. Where is there any 
provision in the Constitution limiting or controlling the discre- 
tionary poAvers given to eacli House to determine its Vules ot pro- 
cedure? The fixed rule of the Supreme Court, that I do not think 
is ever departed from, is that wliere there is a grant of discretion- 
ary power to anything or anybody in the Constitution of the 
United States, the Supreme Court of the United States will not 
sit in judgment on the exercise of that discretion, no matter what 
it is. It was upon that doctrine that the constitutionality of the 
legal- tender quality of the United States notes was sustained in 
the first decision by the court. The Constitution gave to Con- 
gress the power to declare war. and the Supreme Court held the 
power to declare war carried with it, in the discretion of Congress, 
the doing of anything that the war-making power might think 
necessary to bring the war to a successful close. 

In the making of rules to conduct the proceedings of the House 
there is one other condition fixed by the Constitution. I have re- 
ferred to those that relate to voting. There is only one other. 
There must be a majority of the members chosen to constitute a 
quorum to do business. What is a quorum was raised in this Hall 
on the 4th of July. 1N61. The then occupant of the chair decided 
that a quorum consisted of a majority of the members chosen from 
the Congressional districts. What is the evidence of a quorum, if 
3123 I 



that question had been raised, the then occupant of the chair would 
have decided that the evidence of the choosing is the number of 
members who take the oath of office. Congress might have been 
blocked in its proceedings if the strict construction that I hear 
gentlemen placing upon the constitutional power of the House to 
make its rules had prevailed. 

The quorum consists of a majority chosen. The choosivg is not 
completed or determined except by the oath of office taken Ijy those 
who are chosen. By the Constitution the House is made the judge 
of the election as well as (lualification of its members. A Con- 
gressional district is not oliliged to send a member, and there is no 
power to compel it to. No State in the Union is obliged to send 
a Senator to the United States Senate, and there is no power to 
compel it to do so. 

If a Congressional district had elected a member, and instead 
of coming and discharging his duty and taking the oath of office, 
he had done as a good many did in 1861, had gone into another 
Congress, how could a constitutional quorum be determined ex- 
cept by the oath of office of the members chosen, for that is neces- 
sary to oomplete the choosing, for the House could not send for 
any others and bring them in to make a quorum. A quorum be- 
ing present, the House determines the rules of its proceedings, 
subject only to the conditions in the Constitution to which I have 
referred. What nonsense to make a rule which will allow the 
minority to obstruct all business I 

The majority makes rules to facilitate business, and so long as 
its rules do not contravene conditions of the Constitution, they 
can make just such rules as they please. Suppose the record of 
the House should go to the Supreme Court on a ([uestion whether 
a law was passed in due form. The Supreme Court, looking 
over that Journal, would see whether the President had vetoed 
a bill and it was attempted to be made a law by less than two- 
thirds of the votes of the two Houses on a yea-and-nay vote. 
If the record showed that, the law would be a nullity. In the 
other case, that of impeachment in the Senate, it must show that 
two-thirds of those present in the Senate voted for conviction. 
If two-thirds did vote for conviction, the conviction would be held 
good. 

Now, where in the Constitution is there any other condition 
that they are going to examine in restraint of either House de- 
termining the rules of its proceedings':' There is nothing fixing 
how the House shall vote, nothing about naajorities. and nothing 
about yeas and nays besides the cases referred to. except one-fifth 
of those present may have the j-easand nays entered on the .Jour- 
nal on any question. With the exceptions referred to. the H(iuse 
can make what rules it pleases to facilitate the transaction of Inisi- 
ness. Take an extreme case. Make the rule as proposed, th;it a 
majority of those voting, a ciuorum being present, will pass any 
. bill in the House, no matter what the others do— say there w.-re 
but two voting. What would the court do in examining, to see 
first whether there w;is a (luorum present? How could they de- 
termine that? They take the record of the House and find :;iT 
men have taken the oath of office. A quorum is a majority of 
that number. The House has passed a rule that if members sit 
in their .seats, they are to be counted as present with those who 
vote, whether they vot« or not. Has the House the power to do 
that? The court has already declared they have. A quorum be- 
ing present for business — the positive requirement of the Constitu- 

3123 



tiou-ancl the House having determined m its rules how a bill 
shall be passed, what could there be for the feuprenie Court to m- 
C]ui7-e into if the record showed the bill passed as required by the 
rules of the House? „ -, , , , i 4.1, 

The power to make the rules is conferred absolutely upon the 
Houserto be exercised in their own discretion. How is the bu- 
preme Court, under their own rule of construction, to limit that 
discretion^ The rules of the House as passed provide that every 
member when his name is called, shall vote, except m certain 
specified cases. He refuses to do it. There is no power that can 
compel him to vote if he resolutely refuses. It is a plain violation 
of the rules of the House, and prevents the transaction of its biisi- 
ness Can it be possible that the Supreme Court ot the Lmited 
States would hold that the discretionary power conferred on the 
House to determine its rules of proceedings would not have the 
power to neutralize this violation of its rules by providing that 
those members who comply with such rules shall not carry on the 
business of the House? The rule as proposed neutralizes the re- 
fusal of a member to comply with the rules determined by tlie 
House for its proceedings. The rule neutralizes his refusal to do 
what the rules require by saying he is to be counted m constituting 
a quorum. Then, whoever votes on the riuestion, if the rule so 
provides, concludes him and the whole House. Where is there 
anything in the Constitution that says a bill shall pass the two 
Houses in any particular wav unless it is returned from the Presi- 
dent without his approval? There is nothing about a majority m 
the Constitution: nothing about how many votes shall be required 
to pass a bill, except in case of a veto. It simply says that a bill 
which shall have passed the House and the Senate, before it be- 
comes a ]aw, shall, so and so, be submitted to the President. 

Now, the House determines its own rules of procedure, and like 
any other discretionary power granted by the Constitution is to be 
exercised in its own discretion, not subject to review by any court 
as to the wisdom of the exercise of that discretion. I need not 

take the time of the House except for one instance 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Will you permit me to ask you a ques- 
tion? 
Mr. GROW. Certainly. „ ., . , t 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. While I expect to vote for this rule, I 
would like the ex-Speaker, who ruled in 1861. to be logical m his 
statement. Can vou explain why there would be any prejudice 
to legislation by counting a portion of a quorum silent against a 
bill and having that same number of silent men counted against 
it the same as if they had voted no? 

Mr. GROW. You undertake to grant the same power to a 
member who refuses to obey our rules as to one who does. 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I ask the question, if there were, for 
instance, 50 men on the floor who declined to vote, but who are 
counted for the purpose of making a quorum, wherein is the leg- 
islative effect more disastrous by their refusing to vote than if 
they had actually voted no? 

Mr. GROW. The House undoubtedly has the power to make 
such a rule, but why should the negative side of the question be 
strengthened by all refusing to vote any more than the affirma- 
tive? I should oppose the adoption of any rule that required the 
recording of any member for or against any question except by 
himself. My own conscience and judgment must make that rec- 
ord, and nobody else has the right to make it for me. But the 

3122 



House can neutralize my refusal to vote, so far as practical legis- 
lative results are concerned. 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I am not certain that I have made my 
que.stion clear to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. As I under- 
stand him, his proposition is that a majority of those who vote 

Mr. GROW. A quorum being present. 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Yes: that a majority of those who vote, 
a quorum being present, shall have power to enact a law. Now, 
why should there not be a majority of the quorum voting when 
a portion of those present are silent anj- more than if that portion 
voted "no"? 

Mr. GROW. I do not require a majority of the quorum. 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. No: but if those who remain silent had 
voted "no," then it would have taken a majority of the quorum 
to pass the measure. Now. if they do not vote, how can there be 
any prejudice to them by counting them as voting "no"? 

Mr. GROW. Because in that case you put me on record, to be 
read in the ftiture. as having voted for or against a measure that 
I might be unwilling to be responsible for to the public opinion of 
the world. You undertake to put my convictions on that ques- 
tion on the records of the House. But if I sit silent, withholding 
lay vote, the House can nullify my refusal to vote, so far as legis- 
lation is concerned, and that is all they would have a right to do, 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Do you, as one of the ablest and oldest 
members here, think it would be policy for the Congress of the 
United States to enact laws by less than half of a quorum of this 
bodyV 

Mr. WALKER of Massachusetts. Nine-tenths of the measures 
passed are passed in that way. 

Mr. GROW". Mr. Speaker, it is just as good policy and just as 
wise for one man to vote on a bill in this House with 35G sitting 
silent as it is for 200 to vote and the balance sit silent. If those 
who are present sit silent and refuse to vote. that, under this rule, 
would not prevent one man or any number of men from represent- 
ing the House by their action. If members desire to deteat a 
measure, they must put themselves on record in opposition to it, 
and not, by a mere failure to comply with their duty under the 
law, nullify the action of those who do their duty. The gentle- 
man from Virginia [Mr. Swanson] spoke about members being 
enabled, under this rule, to skulk and avoid proper responsibility. 

Why, sir. any member can dodge to-day or any other time if he 
wants to, and this rule only provides that dodgers shall not ac- 
complish any practical results, so that they might as well vote. 
It is a rule against dodgers. The dodger is the man who will not 
vote, and you have no power to compel him to vote; above all, 
you have no right to put him on record in favor of a measure that 
he is opposed to in conscience, or to put him on record except in 
his own way. You have no right to do that whether he is silent 
or not; but you have a right to neutralize his violation of the 
rules in attempts to defeat legislation, and you do that by making 
a rule that those who do discliarge their duty under the rules of 
the House shall, by their action, bind those who refuse to bj' re- 
maining silent, just as the voters who go to the polls and cast 
their votes, even though they be an intinitesimal portion of the 
voters of the election precinct, can by their action bind those who 
stay away. [Applause.] 
3122 

O 



Sectional Hates Must Some Time Hud. 



E E M A E K S 



EOl^. CtALUBHA a. geow, 

of pennsylvania, 
In the House of Eepresentatives, 

Tuesday, March 24, 1S96. 

The House having under consideration a bill to remove disabilities of Army 
and Navy officers who served in the Confederacy- 
Mr. GROW said: 

Mr. Speaker: I propose to trespass but briefly upon the atten- 
tion of the House at this time. National disasters have fallen 
upon all nations that preceded us, and in our case a mighty disas- 
ter befell this generation. The soil of England was drenched for 
long years in the blood of her best citizens in the Wars of the 
Roses; and yet when that struggle passed from the consideration 
of the living generation who took part in it, the asperities of its 
animosities ceased, and where is the Englishman to-day who 
remembers the antagonisms and strife of that period? 

Slavery was the cause of the rebellion in this country. Our hab- 
its of thought are, to a great extent, creatures of our surroundings. 
We are all born and reared under certain influences, which develop 
certain traits of character. Had the men of Massachusetts been 
born and reared for generations in South Carolina, when the iron 
hail beat on the walls of Sumter they would have joined in rebel- 
lion, as did the men born in South Carolina. And if the men of 
South Carolina had been born and reared in Massachusetts for 
generations, under her surrounding influences, they would have 
united, as she did. in upholding the institutions bequeathed by our 
fathers. What caiised the rebellion— the moving, educating ele- 
ment—is gone forever, and no one sheds a tear on its grave. To-d ay 
all who dwell upon American soil under the flag of our fathers are 
surrounded by similar influences, and will ere long forget the by- 
gones except as a warning for the future, if they have not already 
done so. 

When this mighty conflict was at its height and the roar of hos- 
tile cannon was lieard from one end of the country to the other, 
18.000,000 people stood like the youth in the streets of Paris when 
it was rumored that Mirabeau was dying. He had listened to his 
impassioned eloquence in the Corps Legislatif, and rushing, to his 
physician he eagerly inquired. "What is the matter with Mira- 
beau?" and when told that he was dying for want of blood, strip- 
ping bare his arm, he exclaimed: " Take the blood from my veins 
and put in his, and let Mirabeau live."' Sol8,00J,000of theAmer- 
■mi 1 



ican people, when danger himg over the perpetuity of the Union 
bequeathed by our fathers, baring their bosoms, exclaimed: "Take 
our hearts' blood and let the Republic live."' 

The men in arms for the destruction of the Union were inspired 
by the institution of slavery, and would never have gone to the 
battle for its overthrow only from such influences. What caused 
the rebellion has passed away forever, leaving a Union saved and 
a country free. While our fathers were among the wisest of men 
that ever laid the corner stone of empire, yet in the grand temple 
of liberty which they reared they left the cankerworm of human 
bondage" to gnaw at the vitals of free institutions until the crisis 
hour came when one or the other must die, and slavery was the 
victim. 

The world is ever ready with its meed of praise for valor and 
deeds of heroic self-sacrifice, whether in the Spartan at Ther- 
mopylae, the Old Guard at Waterloo, or Pickett's dauntless charges 
at Gettysburg; but — 

'Tis the cause makes all, 

Degrades or hallows courage in its fall. 

A victorious party in a carnival of blood can not in this age 
convert, itself into a party of perpetual hates. Hates and ran- 
cors must some time end. Let us bury with the heroic dead the 
animosities engendered in the conflict and remember only that 
we are all American citizens, glorying in the traditions of a com- 
mon ancestry, and henceforth vying with each other in deeds of 
patriotic devotion for the greatness and the glory of the Republic. 
[Loud applause.] 

Mr. BOUTELLE. Will the venerable gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania permit me to ask him a question? If devotion to the 
Government, if patriotism, is a matter of locality, and if it be 
true that the people of Massachusetts to-daj^ are entitled to no 
special credit for bfeing loyal, and the people of South Carolina, or 
Alabama, if you choose, are entitled to no special condemnation 
because they were disloyal, does not the gentleman think that he 
ignores a great fact and does great injustice to that body of loyal 
men who, in Tennessee and in North Carolina, in Missouri, in 
Kentucky, and in West Virginia, in spite of the fact that they 
were domiciled with slavery; in spite of the fact of their locality; 
in spite of the fact of their minority; in spite of the fact of their 
proscription and the sufferings for which they fled to the moun- 
tains for refuge— does he not think these men are entitled to some 
consideration, to more honor from the Government of the United 
States than those who voluntarily engaged in fighting to destroy 
the Government? It seems to me that we can not afford to argue 
on the basis that if we had lived somewhere else we should have 
done as somebody else did. You can make that argument in favor 
of anything that any man or set of men ever did anywhere. 

I hold that the people of Massachusetts and of New York and 
of Pennsylvania were loyal to this Government for other reasons 
than because they lived in those States. They were not the men 
who were gathered under a sudden imi>ulse into the Army: they 
were the thoughtful, patriotic hone and sinew of those States, who 
left their homes, their shops, their vocations, and went to the field 
because they believed a great principle was involved, and you 
must give them proper credit for it. And those men in the South 
who were born amid slavery and surrounded by it in the States 
2617 



3 

to which I have referred, yet who were faithful to the Union, can 
not he ignored by simply referring to patriotism as a matter ot 
sectionalism or locality. , ^ ^i tt i ™ 

Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker. I move that the House do now 
adjourn. __ . x i 

Mr GROW Will the gentleman allow me a moment to reply 
to'the question which the gentleman from Mame has asked me, 
nd which implies that I have not a proper sense ot patriotism? 

' Mr. BOUTELLE. I beg the gentleman's pardon ; no man would 
funk of implying anything of that kind. -r,-,- • ^ 

Mr GROW. Mr. Speaker. I ask the gentleman from Illinois to 
withdraw his motion to adjourn for me to answer the question 
but by the gentleman from Maine. i *. t .-n 

Mr HOPKINS I will not withdraw the motion, but I will 
wi'thliold it long enough to enable the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
vania to answer the question. , . j. 

Mr GROW If the gentleman will withdraw the motion tem- 
porarily and desires me to renew it. I will do so at the conclusion 
of mv remarks, or I will leave it for him to renew it. 
Mr. HOPKINS. Very well. 

Mr GROW. Mr. Speaker, we aU know that there is a great 
principle of patriotism in the human breast, formed by the sur- 
rounding associations of childhood in the community m which we 
were born or in which we may chance to live, and there is a sense 
cf justice implanted in every human heart, but each ot these teei- 
ings or senses can be shaded more or less in its development by 
the circumstances of childhood and youth and by the influences 
surrounding our manhood. I depreciate not the valor, the patriot- 
isn the self-sacrifice of the men of Massachusetts. I made men- 
tion of them only by way of illustration, and did not intend any 
disparagement of their patriotic services. ■ ^- ^^ 

We all know that patriotism springs from the associations ot 
childhood in the land in which we are born, and it is just as strong 
in the people of one nation as in those of another. The men ot 
East Tennessee to whom the gentleman from Maine has referred, 
never were demoralized or corrupted by the institutions of hiiman 
bondage. And the same is true of the men in the border States, 
whose heroic self-sacrifice in the cause of the Union was never 
surpassed. It was the cotton States that led in the rebellion, that 
portion of the South where slavery had become the dominant idea, 
the controlling sentiment in politics and in the social relations 
so that even on this floor there was a time when no question could 
be presented that did not directly or indirectly involve the ques- 
tion of slavery, and on all such occasions there was a solid vote 
from the cotton States in favor of slavery. 

Mr. BRUMM. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a 
question at that point? 

Mr GROW. I do not wish to enter into any controversy. 1 
only desire to be understood. Patriotism, justice, the sense of 
humanity are born in the human heart, but their development is 
greatly influenced and controlled by the sentiments that surround 
us, the atmosphere in which we grow to manhood. It was slavery 
that molded the habits and thought of the men who made and led 
the rebellion. I use the word now in no invidious sense when 1 say 
that slavery made its devotees traitors to the Union. It was not the 
impulse of their hearts; it was not the patriotism inculcated by the 



associations and the history and the traditions of our commci 

The object that sent them to the tented field was to defend what 
they considered an institution for their benefit, because, as we all 
know, they proposed to found a republic with slavery as its cor- 
ner stone. Now slavery has gone. It vanished in the expiring 
flames of civil war, and the martyr President, sealing with his 
blood the emancipation of a race, bore 4,000,000 broken manacles 
to the throne of eternal justice. The great cause of all the trouble 
and disaster to our country having disappeared forever, we can 
all rejoice to-day. victor and vanquished alike, in one Union, one 
people, one flag, and one destiny, now and forevermore. [Ap- 
plause.] 

2017 _ 

O 



A PROTECTIVE TARIFF BEST FOR REVENUE. 



SPEECH 



Hon. Galusha A. Grow, 



OF PENNSYLVAMIA, 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



DECENIBER 8, 1S96. 



WASHINGTON. 
1896. 



SPEECH 

EOK GALU8HA A. GFvOW. 



A PROTECTIVE TARIFF BEST FOR REVENUE. 

Mr. GROW. Mr. Chaii-man, on yesterday, at the conclusion 
of the reading- of the President's message, I was anxious then to 
call the attention of the House for a few minutes to one or two 
statements made in the message. 

I will now ask the Clerk to read the extracts from the message 
of the President which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The only entire fiscal vear during which this law has been in force ended 
on the 30th day of June,l89a. In that year our imports increased over those 
of the previous year more than SO,500.0:}iJ, while the value of the domestic 
products we exported, and which found markets abroad, was nearly §70,000,- 
000 more than duf ing the preceding year. 

******* 

Whatever may be its shortcomings as a complete measure of tariff reform, 
it must be conceded that it has opened the way to a freer and greater ex- 
change of commodities between us and other countries, and thus furnished a 
wider market for our products and manufactures. 

******* 

The Secretary of the Treasury reports that during the fiscal year ended 
June 30, 1896, the receipts of the Government from ail sources amounted to 
8409,475,408.r8. During the same period its expenditures were s4;^l,0_(8\&)4.1:b, 
the excess of expenditures over receipts thus amounting to $25,2U3.21.j. lO. 

Thus, it seems, Mr. Chairman, that the expenditures of the 
Government for the last fiscal year, closing June 30, 1896, were 
in round number.s $25,000,000 more than the receipts. The year 
preceding the deficit was 845,000,000 in round numbers. By the 
monthly statement sent us by the Secretary of the Treasury 
the expenditures of the Government since the 1st day of July, 
1896, to the 1st dav of December, the present month, have been 
§40,976,453 more than its receipts. These three items of deficiency in 
revenue run through two years and five months, yet the President 
makes no recommendation as to any mode of increasing the rev- 
enues of the Government, but simply assures us that no deficit 
that has occurred or ^ay occm- need excite or disturb us. A very 
placid mood for the Executive of the Republic while its annual 
expenses have exceeded its receipts about an average of §50,000.000 
a 3'ear during his present term of office. 

The President seems to rest secure that the creditors of the na- 
tion will be paid unless the engravers and the money-printmg 
presses of the Government shall break down. He compares the 
existing tariff with itself one year with another, and declares it 
has done better this year than it did the year before, and if it is 
let alone long enough it will undoubtedly some time meet all the 
expenses of the Goveramont. In addition, he declares that it has 
opened the way to a freer and greater exchange of commodities 
between us and other countries. 

I do not propose to discuss the tariff to-day in any partisan spirit, 
or to excite any questions relating to free trade or protection, but 

o 2511 



simply to call attention to the business character of the existing 
tariif . It is not a question of whether this tariff is better for one 
vear than another, but whether it is a good tariff for any year. 
If it is, we need no change. If it is not good for any year, 
then our first duty, as part of the legislative department of the 
Government, is to so change it as to provide revenue enough to 
meet the expenses of the Government economically administered. 
In a number of the schedules in the existing tariff less duty is col- 
lected on a larger valuation of imports than in the McKinley tariff 
for a corresponding year, and articles of pure luxury of a larger 
amount are imported under the present tariff and less duty col- 
lected. 

To compare some of the schedules in the two tariffs as to amount 
of importation and duties collected, take earthen, stone, and china 
ware. Without taking the time to state the amount of importa- 
tion in each year, I will give the difference in the valuation each 
year and the difference in the duties collected. The valuation on 
china ware, earthen ware, etc., imported in 1896 was $1,162,193 
greater than in 1893, and the duty collected on these very same 
kinds of articles $1,841,499 less than was collected under the tariff 
in 1893. In fruits and nuts the importation in 1896 was §5,721,055 
more than in 1893, and the duty collected was §1,211,173 less than 
was collected in 1893. 

Take iron and steel. This is the only item that I shall read the 
importation of which in 1896 was less in valuation than that of 
1893, but while the importation of 1896 was $8,264,000 less than 
that of 1893, the duty collected was, in roiind numbers. $12,000,000 
less in 1896 than in 1893. All the other cases to which I call atten- 
tion are cases where the importation of foreign products in 1896 
exceeded in amounts and valuation the importation in 1893. and 
in every instance less du.ty was collected in 1896 from the same 
kinds of articles on a larger importation. That is, under the exist- 
ing tariff a larger amount of importation is made than was made 
under the McKinley tariff and less duty on that larger amount was 
collected; that, too, at a time when the Government needs the 
revenue. 

The friends of. the existing tariff aa-e claiming that it is better 
than the tai-iff that it superseded. It is time for some gentleman 
on the Democratic side of the House to rise and in eloquent terms 
denounce " McKinlejasm " as we have heard it so of ten for the 
last three years. While the revenues on these articles fell off, the 
importations increased. Take wool and manufactures of wool. 
I grant that there was a theory underlying the change made in 
the tariff on the woolen schedule. In the other cases there was 
no theory, nothing but a want of business capacity. [Laughter 
and applause.] But in the case of wool there was both a false 
theory and a want of business capacity. 

The imports of wool and woolen manufactures in 1896 show a 
valuation of $27,000,000, in round numbers, more than the imports 
of the same articles in 1893, while the duty collected upon this 
great increase of imports is $21,477,354 less than in 1893. That is, 
we have brought foreigners in competition with our own great 
wool industry, woolgrowing and the manufacture of wool, thus 
giving employment to the labor of other countries, wlule our 
own labor goes begging in the streets, and in doing it have 
thrown away $22,000,000 of revenue. Take carpets and cariieting. 
I read this to further illustrate the want of business capacity 
shown in the existing tariff in levying duties on what are called. 

25-i] 



luxuries. It is evident that a large amount of revenue from 
foreign importations can not be collected without making it some- 
•wlmt burdensome, unless duties are made very large on what are 
called the luxuries of life. Here are carpets and carpeting, 
including the highest priced cai-pets, Axmiusters, Moquettes, and 
carpets woven on special orders to fit a particular room. In 1895 
the" importations of these goods were $7,146 more in valuation 
than the importations in 1892, while the duty collected on them 
was $217,646 less than the duty collected on the importations of 
1892. 

Now, take the tin-plate industry. Before 1890 there was not a 
pound of tin plate made for market in this country. The manu- 
facture for consumption commenced at that time. The importa- 
tion in 1895, under the present tariff, the first year of this tariff, 
was 534,000,000 pounds, as against 403.000,000 pounds in 1892. 
That is, there was 131,784,122 pounds of tin plate imported in 1895 
more than was imported in 1892; yet the duty collected upon that 
importation of 130.000,000 pounds more in 1895 was $1,464,610 less 
than the duty collected in 1892. This loss of revenue is a clear dis- 
crimiaation against our own industry. We can produce all the tin 
plate this counti-y needs. The existing manufactories have suffi- 
cient capacity, but they have been partially shut down for two 
years. We close the door to the product of our own country and 
open the door to the product of foreign factories and call it 
•'increasing our trade with foreign nations.'" 

Take brandy — if it had been whisky there might have been some 
reason in that. [Laughter. ] We imported 8,349 gallons more last 
year than we imported in 1892, and collected $232,992 less revenue. 
Take distilled spirits. Our imports last year were $191,951 gi-eater 
in valuation than our imports in 1893, yet we collected $558,848 
less revenue. 

These, Mr. Chairman, are some of the illustrations of the kind 
of tariff that we are asked to continue until it shall meet the defi- 
ciencies in the revenue. I grant that it g-ained about $12,000,000 
upon itself in its second year, but at that rate how long would it 
take to make up the deficit in revenue already incurred? 

The duty collected on the nine articles that I have enumerated — 
the same class of aiiicles in each tariff, remember— the duty col- 
lected upon those articles during the fiscal year which closed on 
the 30th of June last, was $39,114,676 less than the duty collected 
under the McKlinley tariff on a much less amount of importa- 
tions. 

The following table shows the valuation and duties collected 
on certain articles in corresponding years. 



Valuation 


uf imports and duties collected. 




Articles. 


Year. 


Valuation. 


Duties col- 
lected. 




S 1893. 
\ 1^95 


$1,377,050 
1,384,196 


$851,541 
633,895 






Difference 


7,146 


217,646 


Tin plate - --- 


S 1803 

) hs9r> 


Pounds. 
403,030,785 
534,814,907 


8,801,358 

7,33(),748 






Difference 


131,784,123 


1,464.610 


2541 












Valuatio7i of imports and duties coiiecied— Continued. 



Articles. 


Year. 


Valuation. 


Duties col- 
lected. 




5 1893 
} 1895 


Gallons. 
394,415 
303,764 


$791,488 
558,496 




Difference 


8,349 


233,993 


■nio+illarl cmiTito 


S 1893 
'I 1»% 


$1,906,891 

3,098,841 


3,183,633 
3,634,785 






191.950 


558.848 




5 1893 
i 1896 




Earthem, stone, and china ware — . 


9,377,384 
10,539,477 


5,404,985 
3,563,486 




1,163,193 


1,841,499 




( 1893 
( 1896 


13, 398. 411 
19,119,466 


3,818,801 
3,607,638 




Difference -- 


5,731,055 


1,211,173 




5 1893 
I 1896 


34,860,868 
36,596,815 


21,916,447 
10,034,349 




Difference 


8,264,053 


11,883,098 




S 1893 
^ 1896 


3,081,3»4 
3,060,718 


761,199 






Difference 


30,516 


338,431 


Wool, and manufactures of 


\ 1893 
■^ 1896 


55,391,593 
83,796,757 


44,598,773 
33,131,383 




37.405,164 


31,477,389 







On these nine articles the customs duties collected was $39,114,- 
676 less than was collected in corresponding years on a much less 
amount of importations of the same kind of articles under theMc- 
Kinley tariff . , ^. , , j -.onn 

Sugar was on the free list under the McKmley law, and 1890 
was the last year that it was dutiable until this tariff. 

Let me compare the operations of the existing tariff with tne 
tariff preceding the McKinley tariff. . 

In 1890 the Treasury of the United States collected on the im- 
portation of sugar into this country ,$53,985,873, that being the 
last year in which sugar was on the dutiable list. 

In the year of this tariff which the President refers to m his 
message ^vith commendation— the year closing on the 30th of last 
June— there was collected on sugar $29,808,140, being $24,000,000 
less than was collected in 1890. 

For years we have had a wide difference of views between polit- 
ical parties in this countrv, and probably we shall continue to have 
such differences for years to come as to protection and free trade. 

Protection means employment for American labor in producing 
in this country such articles as climate, soil, and natural facilities 
would allow of being produced here to advantage, at a rate ot 
■^ages— the highest possible— and permit the articles produced to 
be sold in market. Free trade means the payment to labor every- 



(i 

where of the lowest wages paid to labor anywhere. Everybody 
can choose between these theories, i do not propose to enter into 
any discussion of them at this time. But as a business proposition 
we are to consider the results of these two tariffs as they affect 
the Treasury of the United States. The question of how to collect 
revenue for the expenses of this Government is a business 
proposition. 

These two tariffs haA-e been tested in practical operation. Such 
practical tests are better than any theory, better than all logic, 
better than all disputations where imagination furnishes tlie 
"facts"' instead of taking into consideration the results of practi- 
cal operations in business. 

I have here a tabie showing the total exports and imports of this 
country during four years, also the dutiable and free, and showing 
the amount of duties collected. This table shows the results in 
the years 1892, 1893. 1895, and 1806, two years imder the McKinley 
tariff and two years trader the existing tariff. The year 1894 is a 
year which' in fairness can not be used by way of comparison with 
anything before or after. That was a year in which the country 
was engaged in remodeling the tariff. A great part of that fiscal 
year Congress was enga.L;ed in both Houses on that measure. 

The party that framed' the present tariff came into power on the 
4th of March, 1898. liaAang been elected in 1892. As soon as that 
election was over, the influence of the anticipated change in the 
tariff policy of this Government swept over not only our own 
country, but the nations of the world with whom we dealt. Hence 
1894 is a year which no one who wishes to deal fairly can use by 
way of comparison with anything before or since. But we may 
fairly refer to 1892 and 1893 (the two years immediately preceding 
1894) , and 1895 and 1898 (the two years immediately succeeding), 
for any purpose of comparison. 

In the years 1892 and 1893 the total exports of this country 
amounted to §1,877,943,341. In the years 1895 and 1896 the total 
exports amounted to $1,690,145,103, being $187,798,238 less than for 
the two years 1892 and 1893. 

Yet the President assures us that this tariff has opened the way 
to a freer and more expanded commerce with foreign nations. 
This is his claim, in spite of the fact that iinder this new policy 
the exports for 1895 and 1896 are nearly $200,000,000 less than they 
were in 1892 and 1893, really for comparison the last two years 
of the McKinley tariff. 

The total dutiable imports for 1895 and 1896 are substantially 
the same in amount as the dutiable imports were for 1892 and 
1893. There is a nominal difference of §10.740.709. But the ad 
valorem duties in force the two years of this tariff — greater in num- 
ber than heretofore— would more than make up the difference in 
valuation. So that the total dutiable imports of 1895 and 1896 are 
substantially the same as were the dutiable imports of 1892 and 
18'.):;. Yet the duties collected in 1895 and 1896 under this tariff 
that we are asked to allow to remain until it shall make up all 
deficiencies amounted to S()S.353.224 less than the collections on 
the same amount of dutiable imports in 1892 and 1893. It is 
seriously proposed as a matttn- of business that we allow these 
importations of foreign merchandise to come in competition with 
American labor, ^md in addition fail to collect as much revenue 
upon them as was collected in the two corresponding years prior 
to the enactment of this tariff'. 
3541 



The following table shows the total exports and import^ and 
the duties collected for the years 1895 and 1896 compared with the 
years of 1893 and 1893: 

Table showing the total r.vport. and Imports for f, no- years anl the customs 
duties collected in those i.ejis. 




It is for the Congress of the United States to restore the reve- 
nues of the Government so as to equal it^. expenditures or to re- 
duce those expen^litures to correspond with the revenue. Who 
on this side of' the House or who on the other side believe.^t^^^^^^ 
we can reduce materiaJiy the expenditures of this (^oveinmeaiL 
They are now no greater than they were when tte f entleme* on 
the other side we?e in power. We do not charge that they were 
extravagant in expenditures. This mighty country, with its gi eat 
?fve?sifs mighty arteries of trade and commerce requires a great 
elpenditure.ind it can hardly be expected to be less ^om year to 
year. Wise statesmanship, then, requires that we provide in leg- 
islation that the revenues shall equal the ^^cessary expenses of the 
Government, and its people are ready at all times to meet any 
such demand upon their resources instead of borrowing mone> 
for current expenses in time of peace for fuUire generations to 
pay But, Mr^ Chairman, it is the old system^ It is famihar to 
Ssall. Historv repeats itself. Every year of Buchanan sAdmm- 
istration the ekpenditures of the Government exceeded its leve^ 
mies. Each year for the past three years we ha\ e had the same 
wlaillusti-atedinthe present Administration. The Bourbon oi 
anv times learns nothing and forgets nothmg. [Laughtei. J 

In the old days, it is true, free trade harmonized with the labor 
system which existed in nearly one-half of the country. At that 
time and under those conditions there was some little reason m 
their free-trade theory. Capital owned its labor, and it must 
furnish clothing, provisions, houses, and everything ror its sub- 
stance, and it hid no interest in the elevation or the advancement 
of labor. At that time and under those conditions iree traae had 
something upon which to rest. The owner of Ubor would buy 
the cheapest products of the Old World-pvoducts of the poverty- 
sfricken^labor of the old nations of the world, because capital 
thought it could get it at less price than it could purchase the 
same articles at home. They must furnish their labor, and the> 
would do it at the lowest possible cost. But what was a seeming 
reason for that system at that time has passed forever away. From 



the Gulf to the Lakes and from ocean to ocean, with a people 
homogeneous in ideas and institutions, and everywhere with the 
same great stake and interest in the advancement and well-being 
of labor, which does so much to add to the greatness and glory of 
a republic, the reason which existed for the old idea exists no 
more, yet the gentlemen who still cling to it, the same old idea, 
now call it "statesmanship,'' [Laughter.] 

There is no longer any reason for the retention of the system 
which once existed, with the state of society, industries, and pop- 
ulation that now exists, so different from the condition which 
formerly prevailed. Yet we still find supporters of the old theory 
and advocates of the same old principles. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, permit me to say that I know of 
no higher duty to-day for the lawmakers of this country than to 
pro\'ide a system for revenue that will meet all the expenses 
of the Government and provide for finally extinguishing the 
national debt. The McKinley bill was framed to reduce revenue. 
That was its title. There was no sham about it. It was made to 
reduce revenue. We had been paying throughout the entire term 
of Mr. Harrison's Administration §64,000,000 a year in extinguish- 
ment of the national debt. That was done under a revenue pro- 
tective tariff policy begun under the leadership of the venerable 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Morrill, to whom belongs the credit 
of combining ad valorem and specific duties together in custom- 
house duties on tbe same article. 

LTnder the system of revenue protection formulated at that time, 
and established and maintained by the Republican party for thirty 
years, two-thirds of the national debt of almost three thousand mil- 
lion dollars was paid before this Administration came into power. 
They have added §262.000.000 to the interest-paying debt of the na- 
tion, with a deficiency in revenues of §140,000,000 during the time 
they have been in power. How long can this system of revenue con- 
tinue before this tariff" — as the President assures us— will meet all 
the deficiencies in revenue? While the McKinley bill accom- 
plished what it was intended to accomplish — a reduction of reve- 
nue—the prostrating of the bu.siness of the country by the change 
in Administration in 1892 caused too great a reduction. But had 
the times continued under the same political power, with the same 
policy prevailing in the Government, the McKinley tariff would 
have continued to raise enough revenue to pay the expenses of the 
Government and continue to discharge portions of the national 
debt annually, as required by the pledge of the Government in 
1862, when the first issue of paper money was made. 

jSIr. Chairman, the gentlemen who compose the legislative de- 
partment of the Government now and those who will come imme- 
diately after them will have no higher duty to perform than that 
of providing by law for raising sufficient revenue for all the 
expenditures of the Government by a system of revenue protection. 

While we were all content and satisfied with what is knoviTi as 
the McKinley tariff, yet I think like good sportsmen we will all be 
ready and willing to bet our mf)ne3- on the tariff that will be framed 
azid known hereafter as the '• Dingley tariff bill." [Applause.] 

2541 



Reorganization of the Union and Central Pacific Railroads. 
REMARKS 

HON. GALUSHA A. GEOW, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

In the House of Representatives, 

Thursday, January 7, 1897. 
The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union and 

having under coSsideration a bill for the reorganization of the Union and 

Central Pacitio Railroads— 
Mr. GROW said: ^ ., . ^ * 

Mr. Chairman: Not expecting to discnss any of the features ot 

this bill, I shall not trespass long upon the attention of the com- 

The 'gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bell] has just given us a 
statement of his plan for disposing of this important question. 
He informs us that under ail tiie information the committee had 
received, if the road was sold under foreclosure proceedings, the 
first mortgage would be paid otf. and perhaps one-halt the Orovern- 
ment lien, and possibly not so much. This is all that could proo- 
ablv be received from the foreclosure proceedings. And yet lie 
proposes and assures us with great confidence that moneyed men 
will be ready to take the road and pay off the first hen and allow 
the Government lien to be made first lien at 3 per cent interest. 
Who will invest money in the purchase of property that is not 
worth, by your own showing, the amount of money that would 
have to be investedV 

Supposing, for instance, that the road should sell for §o. 000, or 
$10 000, we will say; the Government lien is 82.000, the first Hen is 
$8 000 Now. by the testimony, according to the gentleman s own 
statement, if sold, the §8.000 would be paid and $1,000 on the sec- 
ond lien. That is all the property is worth. It would bring !$1 .000 
less than the amount of the investment. Who if going to invest 
money to make a first lien of our second oneV Why should they 
make it a first lien? That is not a Yankee speculation , and if the 
gentleman had come from one of the New England States, where 
the boys serve apprenticeship in making wooden nutmegs, he would 
not have much confidence in such a proposition. 

Now. Mr. Chairman, we represent the United States here as a 
board of directors, having a junior lien on property. 

The reorganization of railroads has been a common thing in tfie 
countrv during the nast few years. The first rule in reorganiza- 
tion is that the junior creditor must be the loser, if anybody, it 
the property is not worth the first lien, then the junior has no 
remedy. If the property is not worth both liens, the junior loses, 
not the first creditor. Now, we are here as junior creditors 

Mr. HUBBARD. May I ask the gentleman a question? 

Mr. GROW. Yes. 

2K17 1 



2 

iVir. HUBBARD. Suppose yoti have a second mortgage for 
$10,000 on a piece of property. You are preceded by a mortgage 
of $8,000 on that property. If that property shows by its net 
earnings that it AA'onld earn a sufficient amount of money to pay 
a fair rate of interest, say 4 per cent, on the entire debt, would 
you permit the first hen to be foreclosed without bidding for it 
and protecting yourself? 

Mr. GROW. The gentleman can make all the suppositions he 
pleases. 

Mr. HUBBARD. That is not a supposition; it is a fact. 

Mr. GROW. Gentlemen can make all the suppositions they 
please. The gentleman himself claimed that the only basis of 
value on railroad property is its earnings, and there is no use in 
issuing a bond beyond what the earnings will pay interest on. 

Now. the first thing in reorganizing a railroad is the question 
of issuing new mortgages. There may be a first, second, third, or 
any number of liens" The first mortgage, if the property is good 
for anything, is a perfectly good security. Hence first mortgagees 
are not required to make much if any sacrifices, unless in a fair 
business way they might be reqtiired to reduce their rate of in- 
terest. In reorganizations everywhere the first point is the secxir- 
ing of the principal of each of the liens if it can be done. By re- 
ducing the rate of interest the principal of all liens may be saved. 
But without a reduction of the rate of interest and extension of 
time for payment some lien must lose. It is expected that the 
greatest reduction should be on the jiinior mortgage. Our junior 
mortgage has been receiving 6 per cent interest on its principal, 
and, as was shown by the chairman of the committee [Mr. Powers] , 
the Government has received back an amount substantially equal 
to the principal invested, if there had been no interest to calculate. 
The interest is calculated at 6 per cent, which is above the rates 
of interest paid by solvent debtors for a few ygars back. Six 
per cent is the interest reckoned to make up the Sum that these 
people owe the Government. The junior creditor has been re- 
ceiving a greater amount of interest on its money than his money 
was worth. Its principal has been paid back. What is owing 
now is only an accumulation of interest. 

The question is, What can this property pay in indebtedness? 
That depends upon its net earnings, and if its net earnings are 
not enough to pay the interest on §10,000.000, there is no use of 
issuing $15,000,000, because it will be sure to go into bankruptcy 
again after its reorganization. There is no railroad in the United 
States, managed by any directors who are business men or whose 
stockholders have any business capacity, that expects upon reor- 
ganization of the property to have greater liens upon it than its 
net earnings will pay interest on. 

As I said before, I do not propose to enter into the details of 
this question; biit under the showings which have been made by 
gentlemen on both sides of this question, if you let this property 
go to public sale the Government can not collect the amount of 
its claim. That is conceded by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bell] in his proposition: and it is conceded on all hands, under 
the information which the committee bring before the House, that 
on a foreclosure and sale the Government must lose about one-half 
of its debt or perhaps more. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I had my say, I would say to these people, 
" Pay the Government the largest amount of money that you can 
raise," and let us pocket the loss of the difference. 



Mr. MAGUIRS. Is not that the thing to be done by foreclosure 

Mr. GkoW. The evidence is that foreclosure and sale will not 
give you your debt. , • 

Mr. MAGUIRE. It Vv'ill give you more than you can ever get 
in any other way. „, , , ^ , , 

Mr GROW. Oh, no: it will not. We had a rate once on the 
public lands of this country of £il.25 an acre, and a proclamation 
was issued by the President. Who ever heard of an acre of 
public land at these sales selling for more than $1.25? Put up 
these railroads at public sale on foreclosure, and m my judg- 
ment, unless this Government raises the money to pay the tirst 
lien, they will not pay a cent more than the first lien, for the 

reason that , , ,, .,, ■,-, n 

Mr. MAGUIRE. We have testimony that they will sell for 
,S120,000,000. which would give the Government §60,000,000. 

Mr. GROW. There are some more suppositions and beliefs. 
With the testimony before us that these roads are not worth the 
first and second hens, what is the use in talking aboiit somebody 
giving more than that amount on a supposition or belief? 

Mr. MAGUIRE. This committee had no testimony taken; not 
a word of testimony was taken. -, j. 2. -, 

Mr. GROW. The gentleman from Texas who last spoke stated 
that they had gentlemen before them, and spoke of the whole evi- 
dence thev had collected, and that they went into a full examina- 
tion of the subject. He says that the Government could not get 
more than one-half of its debt from the sale of the property. 
Mr MAGUIRE, That testimonv was unsworn statements. 
Mr GROW. What is your statement but an nnsworn state- 
ment? [Lauditer.] Your statement is just as good as theirs. 

Mr. MAGUIRE. Exactly; and theirs is worthless and should 
not be actpd upon. 
Mr. GROW. And yours is worthless if you have not the money. 
Mr. MAGUIRE. Mine is negative. , . . 

Mr GROW. You have not got the money and do not guarantee 
that any amount of money would be paid. Money is the most 
timid of all things; and there is nothing more timid than $1,000,000 
except $2,000,000. [Renewed laughter.] Moneyed men do not 
invest their money in any kind of enterprise without knowing as 
to its value; and when they have the net earnings of a railroad 
they know how to invest. If the evidence as to the net earnings 
do not show that they are sufficient to pay the interest on the farst 
mortgage and on our lien, which is second, at a rate of interest 
not greater than 2 per cent on the bonds, why expect moneyed 
men'^to put their money into this property and give us a first lien 
and they take a second? There is no money circle m the world 
charitable enough to do that for our Government. 

Should these roads be put up for sale on foreclosure, the Govern- 
ment would have either to take out of the Treasury money enough 
to pay the first lien, or the owners of the first lien will make the 
same combination that was always made when we made a sale ot 
public lands by the Government, fixing the price at $1.25 per acre. 
There would be no probability of the Government realizing any- 
thing unless the Government pays the first mortgage. Are we 
ready to raise money and pay off the first lien? Right here let it 
be distinctly understood the Government has no more right m this 
case than any other junior creditor that has invested his money 
in an enterprise, I do not care what it is. 

2G17 



The G-overnment passed a law in 1862, as was stated by the 
chairman of the conjmittee [Mr. Powers] , when the bands of this 
Union were loosened, when the spirit of disintegration swept over 
the country, and wlien on the western limits of the country, over 
the Sierras, a spirit was growing up that if there was to be a dis- 
memberment of the Union they would have a republic on the 
shores of the Pacific. The great motive for the passage of the act 
was to bind the country together, when the last spike was driven 
in the connecting rails of these roads that bound the Pacific to the 
Atlantic with iron and steel bands. At a time when the air vi- 
brated with the boom of hostile cannon, and the continent shook 
under the tread of armed men, this enterprise was commenced, 
and it was an enterprise on the part of Congress of patriotism. 

Congress did not care then whether the Government ever got 
back a cent or not if anybody would build the road; and a hun- 
dred million dollars would have been voted just as quickly if we 
could have had a certain guaranty that a road of this kind would 
be built within five years. If it had been proposed to make it a 
donation even, it would have passed that Congress, if necessary. 
It was not an investment of money for percentage of profit. It was 
an investment for a percentage in patriotism, an investment that 
would bind the Union together and hold it forever. While one- 
half, almost, of our territory was in arms against the other, that 
law passed. It was a year and a half before any capital made 
any move to build the Union Pacific. It stood for a year and a 
half without capital seeking it as an investment. We are told 
now that money is ready to take this road and pay off the first 
mortgage; and yet the evidence shows that it is not worth the 
amount of the first and second mortgage, and would not on fore- 
closure sale i^ay more than 50 or 75 cents on the dollar of our claim. 

Mr. Chairman, to go back to my first point. We are a board 
of directors in council settling a plan for reorganizing a railroad, 
and to submit to the stockholders a proposition by which the road 
is to be reorganized and continued instead of being disintegrated 
and sold at foreclosure at whatever it will bring in the market. 
The Government has no more right, and in fairness and in busi- 
ness honesty, because we have a vote in our power to give as we 
please, we have no more right, as the junior creditor, to put an 
exaction upon the first mortgage than we would have as mensit- 
ting on the board of a private corporation and because of some 
power to do so we might have to compel the first-mortgage bond- 
holders to release a part of their claim. We are bound in good 
business faith to do the same as we would as individuals (without 
any vote or power to coerce a particular course of action ) of a 
board of directors in reorganizing a road in which we had indi- 
vidual interests as junior creditors. 

Money seeks investment, and those who put money into great 
public enterprises are entitled to the benefits that come from them 
if they take the risk. « In this case the capital of this country stood 
back a year and a half after we passed the law for giving the 
bonds and the public lands in aid of this enterprise. And right 
here permit me a diversion. I was always in favor, from the 
time the bill for the construction of a Pacific railroad came 
into the House, of passing it and building the road. I did not 
care what amount of bonds per mile were to be given, but I would 
not vote for the land grant, because in my whofe life I never gave 
voice or vote for any disposition of the public lands except to 
actual settlers. Hence I was opposed to the land grant and would 
2617 



not vote for it, and as I could not vote for the bill without it. I 
am not on the record either one way or the other. If I stood in 
the same position to-day, I should favor the bill for bonds, caring 
nothing about what amount per mile should be given if necessary 
to secure the building of the road; but I would withhold the land 
grant, and if necessary I would make the amount of bonds large 
enough to take their place — if absolutely necessary. But that is, 
among the bygones, and I refer to it now only as a historic inci 
dent of a personal character. 

Mr. Chairman, the question is now. What shall we do in this 
case? We are legislators voting to give legal power for reorgan- 
ization to those who invested their money in a great enterprise. 
It was an enterprise which has made the dream of Columbus a 
reality. The people of the land of his birth now go westward to 
find the Indies. It oi^ened this great central line of communica- 
tion around the globe. Our Government invested $64,000,000 of 
bonds in that great undertaking, and now legislation is necessary 
for reorganization, and we as legislators, in dealing with this 
question, have no more right to govern our action according to 
our view of the character o'f the men who engaged in the enter- 
prise and carried it through than we would have in dealing with 
any merely individual enterprise. Neither this enterprise itself 
nor the men who carried it to success ever received from the Gov- 
ernment one bond more than the law gave them. The law fixed 
the amount at so much per naile, and they never received one 
dollar in bonds or one acre in land more than the law gave. If 
they could make money out of the enterprise under those condi- 
tions, that was their good fortune. They took the risk of losing it. 

The Central Pacific Company, under a laAv of California, first 
commenced work, and soon after Congress passed the law for tlie 
building of the roads was in full force in construction. When 
the idea of building a railroad to the Pacific was first taken up. 
three railroads were in contemplation. One was to be a southern 
road and there was a controversy between the city of Memphis 
and one or two other points in the South as to which should be 
the eastern terminus of the Southern Pacific. Another was to be 
a northern road, starting somewhere on Lake Superior, and, of 
course, there was to be this great central road. These projects of 
three lines across the continent were presented to Congress before 
the time when a part of the people's representatives here went 
forth to the battlefield to destroy the Union of our fathers. 

Soon after that event this single line was started, and the effort 
was made to have it completed in as short a time as possible. 
That effort was successful. The enterprise has been accomplished. 
The country has received its benefits. We, sitting here to-day, 
are not required to determine whether the legislation of that day 
was wise or unwise, or whether the men who engaged in that great 
enterprise have made money or have lost money by it. Neither 
are we to inquire whether they have managed their railroads dif- 
ferently from the way the directors and stockholders in other en- 
terprises have managed their roads. The question before us is 
not one that we can settle by the main strength of our votes if we 
propose to act fairly and justly with the men who invested their 
money in this great enterprise which originated in legislation for 
the unity and benefit of the country and of mankind. [Appla use. ] 
2617' 

O 



Will of Learal Voter Supreme Law. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

In the House of Eepkesentatives, 

Tlmrsday, January 21, 1897, 
On contested election case of Yost against Tucker. 

Mr. GROW said: 

Mr. Speaker: There has been brought into this discussion a 
vital and fundamental question affecting the Government itself. 
Upon that I propose to speak, and not upon any question of facts 
involved in this case. A hundred and twenty years ago a Vir- 
ginian announced, in language that will live as long as the spirit 
and genius of free institutions exist among men. that governments 
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Leg- 
islation only fixes the mode and manner of ascertaining that con- 
sent. Three hundred and fifty-seven Representatives sit upon 
this floor representing what and whom? Representing the people 
of the United States, and the consent of the people of the United 
States is embodied in the ballots of those voting and having the 
qualifications of voters as fixed by each State for the most numer- 
ous branch of their legislature. When they have thus fixed the 
qualifications of the voters, that class of voters are our direct con- 
stituents; and they represent the people of the United States. 

This House are their Representatives in lawmaking. The Sen- 
ate of the United States represents them in the same capacity. 
Diti^erent modes and forms for the election exist in the two cases; 
that is all the difference. The legislatures of the States, when 
they fix the qualifications of the voters, have no more to do, and 
the voters so qualified become our constituents, and it becomes 
:)ur duty to see that their will is respected in the forms provided 
for its expression. The legislature of the State fixes the mode and 
manner by which the will of the voters is to be gathered, and we 
sit here as judges, in contested- election cases, to determine what 
part of the rules and regulations made by the States we will con- 
sider mandatory and what part directory. 

How can we discharge that duty wisely and well? For myself, as 
a judge in an election case, I should hold all regulations of a State 
legislature made for the purpose of gathering the will of the quali- 
a898 1 



fied voters as merely directory so far as those regulations inter- 
fered in any way with the free and fair expression of the voter's 
will. The "qualified voter has a right to express his will and to 
have that expression embodied as he makes it, and any regulation 
of a State legislature that is calculated to distract the voter or to 
enable anybody with fraudulent intent to defeat his will we are 
bound to hold as merely directory. A court that will construe 
the laws of a country so as to destroy the spirit and genius of the 
institutions of that country deserves impeachment, either for 
want of capacity or for want of a true appreciation of the spirit 
of those institutions. [Applause.] 

We sit as a court of judicature in dealing with these election 
cases. The judges of the State courts pass iipon the laws of the 
legislatures of the States for all State purposes. They determine 
what is mandatory and what is directory in the laws that govern 
the ordinary relations of life within the State, but we are the tri- 
bunal to determine whether the free electors of this country have 
had a fair opportunity to express their will at the ballot box, and 
where their ballots show clearly and unmistakably upon a common- 
sense view what their will was and when we can ascertain it, it is our 
duty to give force to that will by seating the Representative they 
have selected. The State rules and regulations should be made in 
aid of ascertaining the consent and will of, not to defeat the will 
of, the constituency of the lawmakers. I trust the day will some 
time come when a Senator of the United States will regard himself 
as representing the people of the United States and not as an am 
bassador coming into the court of Congress for some petty com- 
munity, living within some geographical limits with a local name, 
and will hold that his highest duty and obligation is to the Gov- 
ernment from which he draws his salary and whose honors he en- 
joys and which Government protects the people in the State where 
he lives against domestic violence and foreign invasion. 

We sit as a court to determine what the will of the legal voter 
is. if he expresses it plainly and unmistakably upon his ballot 
before he deposits that ballot in the box, and the forms and rules 
that the State has established to govern him in so expressing his 
will by his ballot can not defeat that will by requiring him to be 
responsible for the proper discharge of the duties recjuired by law 
of the boards of election. I know that in the Fii'ty-third Con- 
gress a Democratic majorjty in this House decided, in the case of 
O'Neill against Joy, that the voter was responsible for the proper 
discharge of the duties required of the election boards, a doctrine 
destructive of the whole spirit and genius of free elective govern- 
ment. 

The voter is supposed to know the law that applies to himself and 
the law that directs him how to prepare his ballot. He must con- 
form, to the best of his ability, to such requirements of law or at- 
tempt to do so, but there his responsibility ends. To illustrate my 
idea: The law of Missouri provided that the ballot should contain 
the names of all the candidates, and that no other ballot than the 
. official one should be used at the election. That was just and 
proper. Assuming that there would be more than one political 
party represented on the boards of election, the law provided also 
that every ballot, when given to the voter, should have on the 
back of it the initials of two of the judges of election. The testi- 
mony in the case disclosed the fact that in most of the boards 
every member was a Democrat, and they thought it was of no 
2893 



consequence that two of them should put their initials on each 
ballot: so a large number of ballots had but one initial or name 
upon It. The Democratic majority in this House threw eut the 
ballots ot those voters and thus neutralized the will of the voter 
in that case because the boards of election had not done what was 
required of them by the law. and thus they made the voter respon- 
sible for the failure (rf the members of the election boards to per- 
form their diity. On a technical construction of the law. if it 
sbould be held m such case to be mandatory, the legal voters 
are deprived of their rights. If we are to permit the legislatures 
< of the States to fix the rules and regulations, and are to regard 
them as mandatory when they defeat the will of the voter if so 
construed, the result would be, in many instances, to enable the 
boards of election to defeat the will of the constituents who elect 
the members of this House. As a court construing laws, we can 
not construe them so as to defeat the will of its constituents 

Mr Speaker, there was no charge of fraud in the Missouri case 
to which I have alluded. It was conceded on all handg that that 
election was honestly and fairly conducted and that the votes 
were counted as they had been deposited in the boxes: but when 
the case came before Congress the Democratic majority then in 
this House decided that because two of the judges of election in 
each case had not put their marks upon the ballots as required by 
law. though one of them had, therefore the ballots were invalid 
and they threw out all such votes that had been counted by the 
boards of election and gave the seat to the Democrat and turned 
out the Republican who held the certificate of election based upon 
the returns of those Democratic boards. Mr. Speaker such a 
decision as that I do not think should be respected as a prece- 
dent by the American Congress. Supposing the board 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

By unanimous consent, Mr. Grow's time was extended for three 
minutes. 

Mr. GROW. The decision of the House in that Missouri case 
was made on the claim of the statute being mandatory. It was a 
strict construction of legality which defeated equity, which I re- 
gard m all cases as wrong. Suppose an election board corruptly 
designing to cheat the voter and neutralize the effect of his vote 
It siich a regulation of law as that which existed in the Mis- 
souri case is to be held as mandatory, what would they have to 
do. No matter which party has control, if they desire to cheat 
^?^u^-i *"®y ^^^^ "^^^ ^^ ^s to agree among themselves and 
say, i he law requires two of us to mark each ballot; nov/, when 
a man belonging to the opposite party comes to vote, one of us will 
mark his ballot, and that will throw it out; then when a voter of 
our own party comes up, two of us will mark his ballot, and that 
will be counted. " Is it not clear that such a construction of State 
laws and regulations would enable a corrupt election board to de- 
teat the will of the voters in every case? In this case which is 
under consideration the law requires that where a voter under- 
takes to erase the name of a candidate for whom he does not desire 
to vote the scratch which he makes in erasing the name must 
cover at least three-fourths of the name. Suppose a candidate's 
name to occupy 2 inches; if the pen or pencil with which the eras- 
ure IS made does not run through an inch and a half of that name, 
then the ballot is worthless. It the erasing line is an inch and 
three-eighths long the ballot is bad, but if it is an inch and four- 



eighths long the ballot is good! The election boards would have 
to have a rule with an infinitesimal scale with which to measure 
the scratches upon the ballots in order to find out which were 
legal votes and which were not. 

Mr. Speaker, without trespassing further on the attention of 
the House or upon the kindness of the gentlemen who have yielded 
me time. I sa.y in conclusion simply this: T^je will of the voter is 
the supreme law of the land in this country. It is the great funda- 
mental principle of free government that its powers are derived 
from the consent of the governed, and to ascertain that consent 
is the highest duty and obligation of everybody who sits as a 
court, whether in a legislative hall or in the civil tribunals of the 
country. [Loud applause.] 



WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS. 



REMARKS 



HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, 



OF PENNSYLVANIA, 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES^ 



February 9, 1897, 



"WASHINGTOM. 

1897. 



BEMARKS 

OF 

HON. GALU8HA A. GROW. 



The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 1139) granting a pen- 
sion to Caroline D. Mowatt, with the veto message of the President- 
Mr. GROW said: 

Mr. Speaker: This bill, vetoed by the President, restores a pen- 
sion of $25 a month to a widow over seventy years old. Her 
husband enlisted in the Union Army, was honorably discharged, 
and died of disease the result of Army service. She received a 
a pension of $25 a month as his widow, which she continued to 
receive till her second marriage, in 1869. She lived with her 
second husband until his death. But for this second marriage 
she would now be receiving a pension of $25 a month, and which 
pension she would have received since 1869. By reason of her 
second marriage the Treasury is the gainer of an amount of money 
greater than she could possibly receive, unless she should live to 
be over a hundred years old. This bill simply restores her to the 
pension roll at the same rate she was receiving as the widow of 
the soldier who.^^e wile she was during his term of service. 

The President interposes a veto on this discretion of Congress, 
for the only reason that the passage of the bill would be a bad 
precedent. The precedent for this kind of legislation began, as 
the House has just heard from the speeches of the gentleman 
from New Hampshire [Mr. SullowayJ and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Wood], in 1836. by an act of Congress, signed by 
President Jackson, pensioning the widows of honorably discharged 
soldiers of all wars prior to that time. The only thing about this 
bill bad as a precedent is that it does not include all the widows 
of honorably discharged Union soldiers who were married before 
the close of the war and who are widows at the time of their ap- 
plication for a pension. It is a disgrace to the statute book of 
this country that it places a ban upon the widow for her second 
marriage. The service she rendered her country as the wife of 
the soldier in the field is no less meritorious because of her second 
marriage, after the death of her first husband, 

Mr. Speaker, The beginning of war is merriment, music, and 
thoughtless hilarity; its end numberless headstones bearing the 
single word " Unknown," tears, and desolation, followed by long 
years of sorrow by the widow and the orphan mourning at dis- 
consolate firesides the unreturning brave. The Government 
grants bounties for meritorious service rendered in the times of 
its imperiled existence. In the calendar of acts of heroic, self- 
sacrificing fortitude developed by war. there is none greater than 
that of the young mother standing in the doorway of her humlile 
cottage, with a tender infant in her arms, and bidding its father 
2591 3 



go forth to the battlefields of his country in defense of the inalien- 
able rights of mankind. Then retiring to her lonely fireside, there 
to wait and watch through weary years, in alternate hope and 
fear whether that father will return with his shield or upon it, 
thus leaving her homeless and that child fatherless to grope their 
way in sorrow along life's thorny pathways. But should he return 
from victorious battlefields wounded and maimed, thus adding to 
her daily labor and care through lingering years, and when death 
lays his cold hand on the sharer of her joys and sorrows, why 
should the Government in that time of her greatest need with- 
hold the bounty promised for meritorious service rendered the 
country in the hour of its direst peril? With the exception of the 
bayonet charge, the forlorn hope, and the clash of arms in battle, 
the trials, the toil, and the privations of the wife at home are 
scarcely less than those of the soldier on the tented field. A nation 
owes a debt of lasting gratitude and enduring obligation to the 
men who peril their lives amid shot and shell in its defense, and 
it owes a like debt to the wives and the mothers of its brave de- 
fenders. 

At the domestic fireside is inculcated the patriotism and love 
of liberty which, when the times of trial come, inspires the great 
deeds of heroic self-sacrifice in their behalf. The last injunction 
of the Spartan mother, with her parting kiss, to her darling boy 
going to battle, was to return with his shield or upon it. Thus 
was instilled into the youth of Sparta at their mother's knee the 
manly sentiment, nobly to live or bravely to die. Under such 
influence Sparta through the ages of its renown reared a race of 
invincible warriors, when war consisted of single combats, man to 
man, armed only with spear, broadsword, and shield. The shield 
a breastplate of defense for the soldier while living: and should 
he fall bravely in battle, it was the bier upon which he v.-as borne 
back to his home, there to sleep forever beside his country's hon- 
ored dead. 

The war widows of the Union Army in this mightiest conflict 
of arms in the history of the race are a class of meritorious pen- 
sioners not large in number, the youngest of whom must now be 
over fifty years old, and the last of whom will, with the frosts of 
a few more winters, be gathered to their earthly companions in 
the bivouac on "fame's eternal camping ground." This Spartan 
mother named in this bill, caring for and watching over the home 
of the soldier while periling his life on his country's battlefields 
at the end of each day, with her little ones around her, closed her 
eyes in sleep for the night with a shuddering doubt whether their 
earthly protector would be numbered in the coming morn with 
the living or the dead. And the President would have her close 
her eyes in her last sleep on earth with gaunt poverty sitting at 
her fireside and sorrowing want surrounding her deathbed. It 
may well be said the Republic is ungrateful to its brave d.^fenders 
if its lawmakers permit such injustice to the living and wrong to 
the dead. [Loud applause.] 

[Cries of -'Vote ! " " Vote : "] 

On the question, "Will the House on reconsideration pass this 
bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing? 

Yeas 143, nays 54. 
2591 



RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP TO THE SOIL. 



SPEECH 



HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, 



OF PENNSYLVANIA. 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



Friday, February 19, 1897, 



wash:imgtox. 

X897. 



SPEECH 

HON. GALU8HA A. GROW. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union- 
Mr. GROW said: 

Mr. Chairman: Forty-five years ago it was my privilege in this 
presence to advocate the right of the pioneer settler to his home; 
and now it is my privilege in the same presence to advocate his 
rightful ownership in the soil. In 1889. and immediately thereafter, 
treaties were made with various Indian tribes for their lands in 
Oklahoma. Nebraska. Minnesota, North and South Dakota. Idaho, 
Montana. Washington, and Oregon. After the ratification of these 
treaties, and entirely independent of them. Congress passed laws 
relative to each of these acquisitions. re(iuiring persons who should 
settle upon them to pay into the Treasury at the end of five years 
from $1 to $3. 75 per acre. This was an abandonment, so far as these 
lands are concerned, of the free-homestead policy which applies to 
all other public lands. The price exacted by the Government for 
these lands is greater, and in some cases much greater, than the 
price which existed for any of the agricultural lands of the Govern- 
mentprevious to the passageof the free-h( )niestead law. The object 
of this bill is to put the lands acquired by these treaties under the 
same homestead provisions as now exist for all other lands here- 
tofore acciuired by treaties with Indian tribes or in any other 
way. and relieve them from imposition of greater hardship and 
injustice than was ever imposed upon the actual settlers under 
oiir land system since the foundation of the Government, when 
the lands were sold to the highest bidder. This was an innovation 
on the provisions of the free-homestead policy, and that is the 
reason I desired to call the attention of the House to the bill now 
pending as a Senate amendment to the House bill. 

This House, in the last session of Congress, passed a bill re- 
lieving the settlers in Oklahoma, and it went to the Senate. It 
was amended there by including all settlers similarly situated on 
all the public lands of the United States: and it comes back and is 
pending here on our Calendar. Whether we will have an opportu- 
nitv to act on it or not I can not say. But after a contest during my 
former entire Congressional service to secure relief to the pioneer 
settlers, who have converted our wilderness into blooming fields, 
and who have established civili,'?ation on the ruins of savage life, 
I was not willing that this session should close without having 
public attention called to the hardship and injustices imposed 
upon the settlers on the public lands affected by tliis bill. 

On the ;5()f h day of March, ISHl'. my first speech as a member of 
Congress was made in the Old Hall of the House of Representa- 
2 2590 



3 

tives, on Man's Right to the Soil. From that time forth, in sea- 
son and out of season, the policy of free homes for free men was 
kept constantlj' before Congress until the 27th clay of May. 1863 
(to take effect January 1, 1863), when it became the law of the 
land by the signature of the unlettered child of the prairies, Abra- 
ham Lincoln, after I had signed the enrolled bill as Speaker of the 
House. 

There are two interesting incidents connected with the final 
passage of the original free-homestead bill. First, it took effect 
on the day of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. Second, the 
first settler under the homestead bill, which provided free homes 
for free men, was named Freeman. Daniel Freeman, of Beatrice, 
Gage County. Nebr., was a Union soldier, home on a furlough, 
which would expire on the 2d or 'M day of January, 1868. At a 
little past midnight on the 1st day of January, 1868, he made his 
entry in the land office of his district and left his home the same 
day to take his place again in the ranks on the tented fields. Hia 
entry was No. 1, his proof of residence was No. 1, his patent was 
No. 1, recorded on page 1. of book 1. of the Land Office of the 
United States. The first settler under this law was a Freeman, 
and 1 trust the last of its beneficiaries in the long coming years of 
the future will be a free man. [Applause.] 

The Congress of the United States was the first legislative body 
of any nation in the world's history, s« far as I know, to set apart 
or attempt to set apart its public domain in homes for its citizen, 
without money and without price. There had been many efforts 
made, reaching far back into antiquity, for limiting the number 
of acres that might be acquired by a single individual, and for 
preventing or restricting the acquisition of lands by the few, and 
for a division of public lands among different classes of the people. 
Four himdred years before the Christian era. Licinius Stolo, a 
Roman citizen of plebeian birth, was elected tribime of the Com- 
mons. He procured the passage of a law, which in history beaf a 
his name, restricting the acquisition of the public lands by any 
one individual to 500 jugera— about 850 acres. During his term 
of office he also secured the passage of other regulations to pre- 
vent the patricir.n class from monopolizing the lands acquired by 
conquest or purchase. Twohundred and fifty years later Tiberius 
Gracchus, of patrician birth— his mother beingCornelia, daughter 
of Scipio Africanus— was elected tribune of the Commons. He 
espoused the cause of the plebeians and became their recognized 
leader. He attempted to revive the old Licinian law, which had 
fallen into disuse, and lost his life in his efforts to secure a more 
equitable division of the public lands and to provide for their 
cultivation by free men instead of slaves. A little later his 
brother. Caius Gracchus, was elected tribune of the Commons, 
and he, too, lost his life in endeavoring to secure the reforms 
advocated by his brother. 

Had Rome adopted the policy advocated by the Gracchi, of dis- 
tributing the public lands among the landless of her citizens, and 
securing their cultivation by free men instead of .slaves, the eaglea 
of the Roman commonwealth might have fioated in triumph long 
after the ivy twined the broken columns of the imperial palace 
of her Csesars. For when at last the barbarian from his wilder- 
ness home came with torch awd spear to the very walls of the 
Eternal City, there was no longer an independent yeomanry with 
homes to defend, or a great patriotic laboring peoiile to bare their 



bosoms in its defense; and the seven hills falls an easy prey to the 
Goth and Vandal; and Italy, proud mistress of the world, is over- 
run by rude warriors. The bat and the owl build their nests in 
the crumbling walls of her Coliseum, the grandest architectural 
ruin of all antiquity. 

From the death of the Gracchi through the more than twenty 
centuries of subsequent history many attempts had been made in 
various nations to change the tenure of lands or to provide for 
their distribution among different classes of the people. But 
through it all there was a universal consent that the title and 
rightful ownership in the soil of the earth's surface was in the 
king or the ruling class, called the State, and that the public 
domain might rightfully be held as a source of revenue or be doled 
out in vast manors to court favorites or granted in unlimited 
quantities in donations and charities. In 184(5, Felix Grundy 
McConnell, a member of Congress from Alabama, introduced 
in Congress a bill which provided that any head of a family might 
enter 160 acres of land on filing affidavit that he or she intended 
to cultivate it for five years and was "wholly unable to pay the 
minimum price fixed by law." This bill by its very terms was a 
mere charity and it was so intended. It asserted no principle as 
to the rightful ownership in the soil or any general policy for 
the disposition of the public lands. Nothing was done with it 
after its introduction. Of the many propositions and iegislati\^ 
measures proposed in this country and others relative to the dis- 
position of the public domain, the free-homestead law, passed by 
the American Congress in 1882. is the only one to my knowledge 
that was based on the great fundamental principle, founded in 
nature and natural law, that whoever applies his labor to an un- 
occupied portion of the earth's surface in its cultivation, seals hia 
title of rightful ownership thereto in the sweat of his face as it 
moistens the soil he tills. [Applause.] 

For ten years after my first entry into Congress, the all-absorb- 
ing question of legislative discussion in these Halls, next to that 
of restricting slave labor institutions to their then existing limits, 
was the question as to the proper and best disposition to be made 
of the public lands. For final success in legislation, the policy of 
setting them apart in free homes for actual settlers had to be 
divested of the idea that it was one of charity or Government 
bounty. If that was the case, it could have no permanent place 
in legislation. To secure such place, it must be recognized, both 
by lawmakers and the people, as a fundamental right, belonging 
to the settler, of which he could not justly be deprived. From 
the first, therefore, 1 endeavored so far as my ability would per- 
mit to enforce the position that the Government should stop all 
sales of the public lands and confine their occupancy in limited 
quantities to the actual settler alone, and that this ought to be 
done as an act of justice to the settler as well as sound policy for 
the Government. Hence my voice and vote were always against 
any other disposition of the public lands. Tlie discussion of the 
question finally culminated in the enactment of the free-home- 
stead law as the fixed policy of the Government in the manner 
already stated. 

In support of the present Senate bill I will read an extract from 
the speech delivered in tlie < )ld Hall before a majority, or very near 
it, of the members of this House were born. It will, therefore, if 
they have not been diligent readers of the Congressional Globe, 
be as new to them, if not to the rest of the House, as anything I 

2596 



might utter at this time. And I am sure it will be quite as con- 
clusive in arg.ument. Before doing so I ask unanimous consent to 
print as an appendix to my present remarks part of the speecb 
made in 1860 on the homestead law before its passage. The his- 
tory of the acquisition of the public lands which it contains and 
the reasons urged for the passage of the bill then pending are all 
equally aiiplicable to the ijeuding Senate bill. 

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sherman). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? 

There was no objection. 

[Extract from speech made March 30, 1853, on Man's Right to the Soil] 

"But even if the Government could derive revenue from the 
sale of the public lands, it is neither just nor sound policy to hold 
them for that purpose. It is well sometimes to go back of the 
authority of books and treatises on h^^man rights, composed by 
authors reared and educated under monarchical institutions, and 
whose opinions and habits of thought consequently have been 
more or less shaped and molded by such influences, and examine 
by the light of reason and natural law the true foundation for gov- 
ernments and of the inherent rights of man. 

" The fundamental rights of man may be summed up in two 
words: Life and happiness. The first is the gift of the Creator, 
and may be bestowed at his pleasure: but it is not consistent with 
his character for benevolence that it should be bestowed for any 
other purpose than to be enjoyed; and that we call happiness. 
Therefore, whatever nature has provided for preserving the one 
or promoting the other belongs alike to the whole race. And as 
the means for sustaining life are derived almost wholly from the 
soil, every person has a natural right to so much of the earth's 
surface as may be necessary for his support. To whatever unoc- 
cupied portion of it, therefore, he applies his labor for that pur- 
pose, from that time forth it becomes appropriated to his own 
exclusive use: and whatever inaprovements he may make by his 
labor becomes his property and subject to his disposal. 

" The only true foundation for any right to property is man's la- 
bor. That is property, and that alone, which the labor of man has 
made such. What right, then, can the Government have in the 
soil of a wild and uncultivated wilderness as a source of revenue, 
to which not a day's nor an hour's labor has been applied I o make it 
more productive and answer better the end for which it was cre- 
ated, the support and happiness of the race? 

"It is said by Blackstone in his Commentaries that — 
" There is no foundation in nature or natural law why a set of words upon 
parchment should convey the dominion of land. The use and occupancy 
alone gives to man an exclusive right to retain in a permanent manner that 
specified land, which before belonged generally to everybody, but particu- 
larly to nobody. 

" It may be said, true, sucn would be man's right to the soil in a 
state of nature: but when he entered into society he gave up part 
of his natural rights, in order to enjoy the advantages of an organ- 
ized community. This is a doctrine, I am aware, of the books and 
treatises on society and government. But it is a doctrine of des- 
potism, and belongs not to enlightened statesmen in a liberal age. 
It is the excuse of the despot in encroaching upon the rights of the 
subject. He admits the encroachment, but claims that the citizen 
gave up part of his natural rights when he entered into society; 
and who is to judge what ones he relinquished but the ruling 
power? 



•'It was not necessary that any of man's natural rights should 
have been yielded to the state in the formation of society. He 
yielded no right but the right to do wrong, and that he never had by 
nature. All that he yielded in entering into organized society was 
a portion of his unrestricted liberty. What he yielded was" that 
he would submit his conduct, which before was subject to the 
control of no living being, to the tribunals to be established by the 
state, with a tacit consent that society, or the government, might 
regulate the mode and manner of the exercise of his rights. Why 
should he consent to be deprived of them? It is upon this ground 
that we justify resistance to tyrants. Whenever the ruling power 
encroaches upon the natural rights of men so far that an appeal 
to arms becomes i^referable to submission, they appeal from human 
to divine laws, and plead the natural rights of man in their jus- 
tification. That government is just, and that alone, which en- 
forces and defends all of man's natural rights, while protecting 
him against wrong by his fellow-man. 

' ' Is it not time to sweep from the statute book its still lingering 
relics of feudalism, to blot out the principles ingrafted upon it 
by the narrow-minded policy of other times, and adapt the legisla- 
tion of the country to the spirit of the age and to the true ideas of 
man's rights and relations to his government? If a man has a 
right on earth, he has a right to land enough to rear a habitation on. 
If he has a right to live, he has a right to the free use of whatever 
nature has provided for his sustenance — air to breathe, water to 
drink, and land enough to cultivate for his subsistence, for these 
are the necessary and indispensable means for the enjoyment of 
his inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
And is it for a Government that claims to dispense equal and exact 
justice to all, and that has laid down correct principles in its great 
chart of human rights, to violate those principles and its solemn 
declarations in its legislative enactments? 

'•The struggle between capital and labor is an unequal one at 
best. It is a struggle between the bones and sinews of men and 
dollars and cents. And in that struggle is it for the Government 
to stretch forth its arm to aid the strong against the weak? Shall 
it continue by its legislation to elevate and enrich idleness on the 
wail and the woe of industry? If the rule is correct as applied to 
governments, the same as to individuals, that whatever a person 
permits another to do, having the right and laeans to prevent it, 
he does himself, then indeed is the Government responsible for all 
the evils that may result from speculation and land monopoly in 
the public domain. 

* * ***** 

"If you would lead the erring back from the paths of vice and 
crime to virtue and to honor, give liim a home; give him a hearth- 
stone, and he will surround it with household gods. If you would 
make men wiser and better, relieve the almshouses, close the doors 
of the penitentiary, and break in pieces the gallows, purify the 
influences of the domestic fireside; for that is the school in which 
human character is formed, and there its destiny is shaped. There 
the soul receives it first impress and man his first lesson, and they 
go witli him for weal or for woe through life. For purifying the 
sentiments, elevating the thoughts, and developing the noblest 
imi)ulses of man's nature, the influences of a moral fireside and 
agricultural life are the noblest and the best. In the obscurity of 
the cottage, far removed from the seductive influences of rank 



and affluence, is nourished the virtues that counteract the decay 
of human institutions, the courage that defends the national in- 
dependence, and the industry that supports all classes of the State. 
Man, in defense of his hearthstone and his fireside, is invincible 
against a world of mercenaries. In battling for his home and all 
that is dear to him on earth, he is never conquered save with his 
life. In such a struggle every pass becomes a Thermopylae, every 
plain a Marathon. With an independent yeomanry scattered over 
our vast domain, the • young eagle ' may bid defiance to the world 
in arms. Even though a foe should devastate our seaboard, lay 
in ashes its cities, they will have made not one single advance 
toward conquering the country, for from the interior would come 
its hardy yeomanry, with their hearts of oak and nerves of steel, 
to expel the invader. Their hearts are the citadel of a nation's 
power, their arms the bulwarks of liberty. 

"Every consideration of policy, then, both as to revenue for the 
General Government and increased taxation for the new States, as 
well as a means for removing the causes of pauperism and crime 
in the old. demands that the public lands should be granted in 
limited quantities to the actual settler. Every consideration of 
justice and humanity calls upon us to restore man to his natural 
rights in the soil." 

The only reason now claimed why the settler should pay from 
$1 to $3.75 per acre to the Government for the lands acquired 
under these recent treaties is that the Government bought them 
of the Indians. The Secretary of the Interior gives as a reason 
for requiring this payment that ' ' it would not be proper to burden 
the people of the whole country in order that land might be ac- 
quired for the purpose of giving free homes to a very small pro- 
portion of them. " This language and the idea are almost identical 
with those used by Mr. Buchanan in his veto of the first homestead 
bill passed by Congress. In that message he said: •' This bill will 
prove unequal and unjust in its operations, because from its nature 
it is confined to one class of our people." That is true, but it is a 
class without restriction and discrimination, and the class to 
whom the lands rightfully belong— the class whose labor adds so 
much to their value, while contributing so largely to the develop- 
ment and growth of the country and its general welfare. 

What property rights did the Government ac<iuire from the 
Indian by these later treaties different from those acquired by all 
other treaties heretofore made? The Government paid him or has 
agreed to pay him for what? Just what the Government has 
always acquired heretofore in the treaties which have been made 
from time to time since the landing of the Pilgrims. 

The Government secured by such treaties the willing consent 
of the Indian to move onward, leaving the pioneer settler to rear 
his cabin home on his receding footsteps, without fear or danger 
of torch or tomahawk. No matter how much monev the Govern- 
ment pays or agrees to pay for such a purpose, it is far better and 
more humane thus to secure his willing consent to leave his old 
hunting grounds and find new ones than to drive him forth with 
powder and ball. 

Mr. FARIS. Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished gentleman 
permit an interruption and a question? 

Mr. GROW. Certainly. 

Mr. FARIS. I desire to preface my question with the admis- 
sion of my great interest in what the gentleman has said, and call 
attention to the fact that we have witnessed a remarkable scene 

2596 



in this House by the gentleman incorporating in his remarks 
utterances that were mfide by him in this presence longer ago 
than many of us have been living, in substantial harmony with 
his present views. I desire to ask the gentleman, as an incident in 
his djstingnished career, if he has in all these years espoused with 
the same fidelity and the same consistency other great public ques- 
tions so happily maintained by him in the matter he is now dis- 
cussing? I ask him this as a matter for our information. 

Mr. GROW. Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any inconsistency 
in my public career. As the gentleman has appealed to my ego- 
tism, I will say that if I had my life to live over I would not 
change mv action on the great political questions upon which I 
have been called upon to act. whether as Representative or private 
citizen. . . , , 

Mr. FARTS. Mr. Chairman, I interrogate my distinguished 
friend as a matter of information to us who areenjoying his speech, 
and without the least reflection that he was inconsistent in his 
public career. My thought is respectful and deferential. 

Mr. GROW. I so understand the gentleman. I may have been 
wrong: but there is no vote I ever gave in this Hall as a represent- 
ative of the people that I would change if I was called upon to 
vote again under like circumstances. [Loud applause.] My 
maiden speech as a Representative in Congress was made on the 
right of the pioneer settler to his home, without money and with- 
out price, for the reasons stated in part in the extract just read. 
I have continued in that same sentiment. 

In my early bovhood that portion of northeastern Pennsylvania 
immediately" around my home was somewhat of a wilderness. 
The first settlers .there were, most of them, just building their 
log cabins, with tall forest trees in close proximity on every side. 
A sled path winding among these trees led out to the grist mill, 
post-office, store, and blacksmith shop of the neighborhood. By 
the labor of the settler alone the forest was to be felled, the land 
cleared, a family supported, and the claimant to the soil was to 
be paid. So long years of ceaseless toil must intervene before the 
Bettler could call his humble cabin home his own. As I passed 
along these winding sled paths, not infrequently would the query 
arise with myself, Why should this man for years contribute all 
his earnings, 'save a scanty support for his family, to some person 
living miles away, whose only claim to the land was that years 
before the claimant or his ancestors sent a surveyor and axman, 
and by blazed trees marked a surveyor's line through the forest? 

At a later period, as a student in the schools the cpiery came, as 
it comes to all in the course of historic reading, What was the 
cause of the unexampled prosperity and greatness of some nations 
at one period of their existence and their subseciuent decay and 
Titter ruin? This question, under the head of the Rise and the 
Fall of Empires, is the great puzzle of all philosophizing on the 
real causes of national decay. I closed my course of historic read- 
ing in the schools with the firm conviction that no nation ever yet 
died or ever will, no matter what the extent of its territory or how 
vast its po])ulation, if governed by just laws and its people are 
imbued with a spirit of humanity as broad as the race. 

On reading inHooke's History of Rome a description of the con- 
dition of Italy more than two thousand years before, as given in a 
Bpeech by Tiberius Gracchus, then a tribune of the people, my 
early, crude idea was greatly sti-engthened that the true policy for 
a government was to secure its unoccupied public lands in lim- 
2596 



ited quantities to the landless of its people, and to prevent by law 
so far as possible the earnings of labor from being absorbed in any 
other way than the making of the laborer's home comfortable and 
his fireside happy. After leaving school and entering a law office, 
I read in Blackstone's Commentaries — the first book given to a law 
Student — that — 

There is no foundation in nature or natural law why a set of words on 
parchment should convey the dominion to land. The use and occupancy 
alone gives to man an exclusive right to retain in a permanent manner the 
specific land which before belonged generally to everybody, but particularly 
to nobody. 

From that time forth the crude idea and shadowy opinion 
which had flitted through my brain in casually observing the 
labor and trials of the early settlers near my home became a fixed 
conviction as to one of the fundamental rights of man. The other 
conviction is equally fixed — that governments are bound to ses to 
it, so far as possible, that none of the earnings of labor are taken 
from the laborer without returning an equivalent for those earn- 
ings alone are all he has to make his home comfortable and his 
fireside happy. The pillars of empires and states rest upon the 
comfort and happiness of the fireside of labor. [Applause.] 

Why should the settler be required by his Government to pay 
for the privilege of occupying a portion of an uncultivated wilder- 
ness, just as it was when created by the God of nature and in the 
same condition in which it was when the morning stars sang 
to-^ether? What equivalent does the Government return to him 
when it takes $1 or $3 or more an acre from his hard earnings, 
which he needs to make his home comfortable, to build the church 
and the schoolhouse, to develop all the elements of a higher and 
better civilization? This legislation, which was begun in 1889. is 
a greater wrong to the settlers upon those lands than was ever 
perpetrated by the Government under the old system of selling the 
public lands to the highest bidder, and for that reason I desire to 
call the attention of the House to the fact that there is a bill pend- 
ing to correct this wrong. Pay the Indian whatever the Govern- 
ment agrees: I care not what the amount is. But what rightful 
claim of ownership can he have or anybody else in the soil of a 
wilderness without cultivation? The only evidence of the occu- 
pation of the land by the Indian is his moccasin trail through the 
forest or along the banks of its winding streams. He bounds hia 
claim of ownership by rivers and mountain ranges, and within 
these circumscribed limits he claims ownership not only to the 
land but to the wild beasts that hide in its jungles; to the fish 
that swim iii its n;ni:iTig waters, and in the birds of the air that 
disport in the foliage of its green forests. 

The evil spirit standing beside our Saviour on the high mbun- 
taiTi. overlooking the kingdoms of this world and the glories thereof, 
had just as good title and rightful ownership in them all as has 
the Indian standing on the highest mountain peaks of a continent, 
• and claiming ownership as monarch of all he surveys, because his 
ancestors, in the years of the bygone, roamed ov^ it with fishing 
rod and bow and arrow, and at a later period with shotgun aiul 
rifle, their only implements of husbandry and civilization. But 
their claim of title and ownership in the soil of an uncultivjited 
wilderness is just as good as the claim to a continent by the might- 
iest monarch of the nations because a subject of his was the iirst 
white man to gaze upon its shores, or to sail across one of its flow- 
ing rivers. The right of discovery, so long recognized by the na- 
tions, is well enough when applied, as it should be, to the dominion 

2596 



10 

over the institutions— the social organisms— that may be estab- 
lished b}' or for the inhabitants of the newly discovered conntry. 
But how can discovery confer any rightful ownership to the soil, 
any more than to the atmosphere that floats over, it, or to the 
waters that rush from its mountain sides to the sea/ How can the 
Indian, any more than anybody else, acqiiire a rightful ownership 
in the soil, when the only evidence of his habitation and occupancy 
is the smoke that curls from his wigwam, covered with the skins 
of wild beasts. 

Since the delivery of the speech in the old Hall, from which I 
have just read, the pioneer settler has crossed the great central 
valley of the Mississippi, and scaling the snow-crowned summits 
of the Sierras, has built a mighty cordon of free States on the 
shores of the Pacific, rearing everywhere along his pathway- 
through the wilderness temples of science and civilization on the 
ruins of savage life. The achievements of the pioneer settler since 
he first overleaped the Alleghanies in his march westward has 
been the achievements of science and civilization over the ele- 
ments, the wilderness, and the savage. 

Under the old land system the Government by its regulations 
permitted the speculator to exfict from the settler f i-om S3 to $o 
or more per acre, without rendering any equivalent. By this new 
system which this bill, if passed, would supplant, the Government 
itself takes directly from the settler from $1 to $3.75 per acre, and 
returns no equivalent, anymore than did the speculator under the 
old system. What ;nstice can there be in legislation which thus 
absorbs the earnings tor long years of these hardy sons of tt)il 
who contribute so much to the greatness and glory of the Repul^iic? 

There is no excuse for such a policy. Take from the white set- 
tler, who is struggling to make a home for mmself and his family 
and to educate his children— take from him his earnings, for what? 
To keep the Indian tramping around in moccasins and idleness! 
The white man working to maintain the Indian in idleness is 
equally bad \^^th the old laud system which permitted the specu- 
lator to take from the settler four or five dollars or more an acre, 

Mr. Chairman, the present law of Congress compels the settler, 
who cultivates the soil, developes the resources of our country, 
and is a brave soldier in the hour of peril, and bares his bosom in 
defense of the Republic, to pay out of his hard earnings to sup- 
Ijort the Indian in idleness, because the Government of the United 
States has to pay the Indian for these lands. Let the Treasury 
pay. The willing consent of the Indir.n to leave is of more con- 
sequence than any amount of money that is paid to him; but there 
is no reason why the Government should, by an independent act 
of legislation, compel the settler to pay from his earnings into the 
Treasury for these lands any more than there was in the old times, 
under the old system, which has been repudiated by the American 
people. 

Mr. Chairman, in 1860 the Republican party adopted as one of 
its cardinal principles and embodied it in its party platform. ' ' Free 
homesteads for the settlers on the public domain." To-day it is 
in the platform of every political party that had a candidate for 
the Presidency in the field at the last election except our gold 
Democratic friends who met at Indianapolis, and the glare of the 
yellow metal. I suppose, so dazzled their vision that they overlooked 
the homestead settlers. [Laughter and applause.] 

In 1860 the Republican party platform was almost identical in 
259S 



11 

words with those in its platform made at St. Louis, and on which 
it was victorious at the last election. 

Six homestead bills, substantially the same, passed the House 
of Representatives before the final enactment of the law. The 
first three never received any action in the Senate. The fourth 
was supplanted in the Senate by a motion to lay it aside to take 
up a bill t£> purchase from Spain the Island of Cuba. Had that 
been done, then we might have been spared the sad spectacle wit- 
nessed now of a people struggling through heroic deeds for the 
inalienable rights of mankind. [xipplause.] That ended all 
efforts to take up the homestead bill in that Congress. 

The next Congress, beginning in December, 1859, consumed 
over a month in electing a Speaker. As soon as the House wag 
organized, early in January. 1N60. tlie homestead bill, which had 
been defeated in the Senate in the preceding session, I again intro- 
duced, and it passed the House. Some time in March or April fol- 
lowing it was taken up in the Senate, and a substitute offered by 
Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee,' was adopted. The House refused 
to accept the substitute, which was merely a graduation in price 
of the public lands, making it 2o cents an acre to the settler on 
five 3-ears' cultivation and 624 cents for preemptors. After some 
weeks the committee of conference of the two Houses agreed to 
the Senate's substitute, which the House finally accepted on the 
principle that "half a loaf is better than no bread." This bill 
President Buchanan vetoed in June, 18(30. At the extra session of 
Congress convened by President Lincoln July 4, 1861. the same 
old homestead bill, which had previously passed the House five 
times, was introduced, and at the following regular session of the 
Thirty-seventh Congress passed both Houses and became a law, as 
I have stated. 

I call attention to the history of these transactions to show that 
while it was a cardinal doctrine of the Republican party at that 
time, even when it was in its cradle, it has been adopted by every 
political party and embodied in the platform of all excepting the 
party that met at Indianapolis last year. Now. while a party 
platform may have or may not have merit, those who adhere to 
the party are bound to see that its pledges are carried oitt faith- 
fully. The will of the people is to be respected according to the 
verdict at the ballot box. [Applause.] 

But, sir, to return to the point I had in view, I claim that the 
Indian should not be forced from the old hunting grounds of liis 
fathers without his consent: and that should have been the policy 
of the Governiiient from the beginning. Never was so unwise a 
policy adopted by a government in reference to any people as that 
which was adopted by ottrs in reference to these people — recog- 
nizing them as an independent nation, owning a part of the earths 
surface, with whom we must treat. They had just as good a right 
perhaps as the mightiest monarch of any nation has in his claim of 
ownership to a continent, because one of his subjects was the first 
white man to look on its shores or sail across one of its navigable 
rivers. I know that this is the doctrine of the books and of inter- 
national agreement. Nations who have discovered new lands have 
the right to control the social organisms, institutions, and gov- 
ernments that may be built upon them. But how can they gain a 
title to the soil by a mere act of discovery any more than to the 
atmosphere that floats over it or the waters that leap from its 
mountains to the sea? 



12 



But sir I have no desire to trespass upon the patience of the 
rommittee I have done what I wished to do. and called their 
Xn on to a bill now pending in this House, as an amendment 
to a House bill that provides for relieving these settlers from these 
unixSt anrexcesSve^burdens and restore these lands to the same 
p?ovSi?ns as all other lands of the Government under the f ree- 

•WhvlhoSrthe Government continue this innovation upon the 
homestead policy, by which greater injustice and wrong is perpe- 
ISuSn'^^helktTerthanwaseveri^rpetra^^ 
thP old svstem of selling the lands to the highest biddei it tne 
We^tla'l'pSi?y is to L discarded, why double -d toibb e^he 
QTYimiTit pver before exacted of the settler.-' ine passage oi uiis 
brwoufrplacfal^he public lands alike, no matter ho^^^ 

acquired, under the provisions of the fj^^-^^^^^l^^^^^ f;\: fj^o^e 
previous to this innovation, has existed ^^inter upte 1 > tor moie 
than a third of a century, and under which the wildemess haa 
been made*^ to bloom and blossom as the rose. 



Appendix. 
Free Homes for Free Men. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, 

op pennsylvania, 
In the House of Eepkesentatives, 

February 29, 1860. 
The House being in Committee of tHe Whole on the state of the Union- 
Mr! CHfJSlix:''kt the close of the ^^evolution the colomes 
claimed dominion, based upon their ^^m^^^^.^ ^^^.T^lE^Tei 
from the Crown of Great Britain, over an ^uninhabited wilderness 
ofT20,000,000 acres of land, extending to the Mississippi on the 
west and the Canadas on the north. The disposition of these 
lands became a subject of controversy l^etween the colonies e^ en 
before the Confederation, and was an early obstacle to the orgam 
zation of any government for the protection of their common 

^¥i??oWies whose charters from the Crown extended o^^^^^^^^ 
of the unoccupied lands claimed, m the language ot themstiuc 
tions of Maryland in 1779 to her Delegates in Congress— 

That a country unsettled at the commenoement of this wa^^ c^^^ 
the British Crown and ceded to it by the treaty at Paris it ^i estcU n om mo 
^mmon enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen btat.s^^ho^ 
iionsidered as a common property, subject to be parceled out by <^o»Bi a?V,iph 
free convement, and independent governments, in such manner and at such 
times as the wisdom of that assembly shall hereafter direct. 

The propriety and the justice of ceding these lands to the Con- 
federation^ to be thus parceled out into free and "independent 
States, having become the topic of discussion every wheie lu tne 

2590 



13 

colonies, Congress, in order to allay the controversy and remoye 
. the only reniaming obstacle to a final ratification of the Articles 
of Confederation, declared by resolution on the 10th of October, 

1780— 

That the unappropriated lands which may be ceded or relinquished to the 
United States by any particular State * * * shall be disposed of for the 
common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct 
republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union and 
have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other 
States, etc. That the said lands shall be granted or settled at such times 
and under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United 
States in Congress assembled, or nine or more of them. 

In pursuance of the provisions of this resolution, New York, 
Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina, North Car- 
olina, and Georgia ceded their claims, including title and juris- 
diction, to the waste lands, as they were called, oiitside of their 
respective State limits; all of them, except Geoi-gia and North 
Carolina, without any conditions annexed to their respective 
grants save those contained in the resolution of Congress just 
referred to. The reservation in the grants of Georgia and North 
Carolina were not, however, as to tlie future disposition of the 
lands, but a condition that slavery should not be prohibited therein 
by Congress. The territory thus conditionally granted is con- 
tained within the States of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. 
With the exception of the grants of North Carolina and Georgia 
(and the reservations even in those relating only to the form of 
their future government) , the public lands claimed by the colonies 
at the close of the Revolution were ceded to the General Govern- 
ment, to be settled and disposed of "under such regulations as 
shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress 
assembled." 

Since that time the Government has acquired by treaty— of 
France, the Louisiana purchase; of Spain, the Floridas; of Mexico, 
Utah, New Mexico, and California, containing all together over 
1,2UO,000,000 acres of land. So the General Government, by ces- 
sions from the original States and purchases from other nations, 
has acquired, exclusive of water, as computed by the Commis- 
sioner of the Land Office, 1.450,000.000 acres of public lands, of 
which there have been sold to September 30, 1859, 147,088,274 
acres, and otherwise disposed of in grants and donations to indi- 
viduals, corporations, companies, and States, including grants 
since June 30, 1857, 341,770.052 acres, leaving of public lands be- 
longing to the Government, undisposed of on September 30, 1859, 
1.0ol,141,675 acres. 

What disposition shall be made of this vast inheritance is a 
question of no small magnitude. Three times within seven years 
a homestead bill has passed this House and been defeated each 
time by the Democratic majority in the Senate. On the vote on 
the homestead bill in the House last Congrv-ss, out of 130 Demo- 
crats, but 31 voted for it; and in the Senate, on the test vote be- 
tween taking up the homestead bill, after it had passed the House 
and only required the vote of tlie Senate to make it a law, so far 
as Congress was concerned, or to take up the bill for the purchase 
of Cuba, but 1 Democrat voted for the homestead, and only 8 at 
any time; while every Republican in the Senate and every one in 
the House, with a single exception, was for the homestead. Of 
all the Representatives of the slave States, but 3 in the House 
voted for it. and but 2 at any time in the Senate. So the Demo- 
cratic party, as a party, arrayed itself in opposition to this benefi- 



14 

cent policy. The Republican party, on the other hand, is com- 
mitted to this measure by its votes in Congress, by its resolves in 
State conventions, and by its devotion to the great central idea of 
its existence— the rights and interests of free labor. 

Early in this session I introduced a bill, which now awaits the 
action "of the House, providing that any person who is 21 years or 
more old, or who is the head of a family, may enter 160 acres of 
any land sul)ject to preemption, or upon which he may have a 
preemption claim, and by cultivating the same for five years 
shall be entitled to a patent from the Government on the payment 
of the usual fees of the land office and $10 to cover the cost of 
surveving and managing. . 

The land policy, as now conducted, permits the President m his 
discretion to expose to public sale, by proclamation, any or all of 
the public lands, after the same are surveyed. Every person set- 
tled on the lands so advertised for sale must before the day fixed 
in the proclamation of the President pay for his lands, or they are 
liable to be sold to any bidder who offers $1.25, or more, per acre. 
During the days of sale fixed by the President, anyone can pur^ 
chase at .SI. 25 per acre as many acres of land not before preempted 
as he desires, selecting his own location. Th» lands that remain 
unsold at the expiration of the days of sale fixed by the President 
are subject to private entry; that is, any person can enter at the 
land office any or all of the lands that are at that time unsold at 
$1.25 per acre, if the same have not been offered for sale more than 
ten years: if for a longer period, then at a less price, according to 
the length of time they may have been in the market. Thus, un- 
der the existing policv, there is no restraint on land monopoly. 
The Rothschilds, the Barings, or any other of the world's million- 
aires may become the owners of untold acres of our public domain, 
to be resold to the settler at exorbitant prices, or to be held as an 
investment for future speculation. 

Congress, as the trustee of the whole people, is vested, by the con- 
dition of the grants from the States and by the Constitution itself, 
with the sole discretionary power of disposing of these lands. But, 
in the exercise of a sound discretion, it becomes its duty to dispose 
of them in th;- wav that will best promote the greatness and glory 
of the Republic. And how can that be accomplished so well as by 
a policy that will secure them in limited quantities to the actual 
cultivator at the least possible cost, and thus prevent tli-e evils of 
a system of land monopoly— one of the direst, deadliest curses that 
ever paralyzed the energies of a nation or palsied the arm of indus- 
try? It needs no lengthy dissertation to portray its evils. Its his- 
tory in the Old World is written in sighs and tears. Under its 
influence you behold there the proudest and most splendid aris- 
tocracies side bv side with the most abject and debased people; 
vast manors hemmed in by hedges as a sporting ground for the 
nobility, while men are dving beside the inclosure for the want of 
land to till. Under its blighting influence you behold industry in 
rags and patience in despair. Such are some of the fruits of land 
monopolv in the Old World; and shall we itermit its seeds to veg- 
etate in the virgin soil of the New? Our present system is subject 
to like evils, not so great in magnitude perhaps, but similar m 

kind. ^ „ 

******* 

The Government, by its existing land policy, has thus caused to 
be abstracted from the earnings of its hardy pioneers almost sev- 
enteen hundred million dollars for the mere privilege of enjoying 
2596 



15 

one of God's bonnties to mai). This large amount lias been ab- 
stracted from the sous of toil without rendering any equivalent, 
save a permit from the State to occupy a wilderness, to which not 
a day or hour of man's labor had been applied to change it from 
the condition in which the God of nature made it. Why should 
governments seize upon any of the bounties of God to man, and 
make them a source of revenue? While the earth was created for 
the whole human family, and was made its abiding place through 
the pilgrimage of this li'fe, and since the hour of the primal curse, 
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," man has been 
forced to the cultivation of the soil to obtain subsistence for him- 
self and the means of promoting the welfare of the race, why 
should governments wTest from him the right to apply his labor 
to such unoccupied portion of the earth's surface as may be nec- 
essary for his support until he has contributed to the revenues of 
the state any more than to permit him to breathe the air, enjoy 
the sunlight, or quaff from the rills and rivers of the earth? It 
would be just as rightful, were it possible to be done, to survey 
the atmosphere off into quarter sections and transfer it by parch- 
ment titles, divide the sun into quantum of rays and dole it out to 
gi-oping mortals at a price, or arch over the waters of the earth 
into va'st reservoirs and sell it to dj'ing men. 

In thelangiiage of remarks heretofore made on this subject, why 
has this claim of man to monopolize any of the gifts of God to 
man been confined by legal codes to the soil alone? Is there any 
other reason than that it is a right which, having its origin in 
feudal times— under a system that regarded man but as an append- 
age of the soil that he tilled, and whose life, liberty, and happiness, 
were but means of increasing the pleasures, pampering the pas- 
sions and appetites of his liege lord— and. having once found a 
place in the books, it has been retained by the reverence which 
man is wont to pay to the past and to time-honored precedents? 
The human mind is so constituted that it is prone to regard as 
right what has come down to us approved by long usage and 
hallowed by gray age. It is a claim that had its origin with the 
kindred idea that royal blood flows only in the veins of an exclu- 
sive few, whose souls are more ethereal, because born amid the 
glitter of courts and cradled amid the pomp of lords and courtiers, 
and, therefore, they are to be installed as rulers and lawgivers of 
the race. Most of the evils that afflict society have had their origin 
in violence and wrong enacted into law by the experience of the 
past and retained by the prejudices of the present. 

Is it not time to sweep from the statute book its still lingering 
relics of feudalism, to blot out the principles ingrafted upon it 
by the narrow-minded policy of other times, and to adapt the leg- 
islation of the country to the spirit of the age and to the true 
ideas of man's rights and relations to his Government? 

For if a man has a right on earth, he has a right to land enough 
to rear a habitation on. If he has a right to live, he has a right to 
the free use of whatever nature has provided for his sustenance — 
air to breathe, water to drink, and land enough to cultivate for 
his subsistence: for these are the necessary and indispensable 
means for the enjoyment of his inalienable rights of "life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of "happiness." And is it for a Government that 
claims to dispense equal and exact justice to all men, and that has 
laid down correct principles in its great chart of human rights, 
to violate those principles and its solemn declarations in its legis- 
lative enactments? 



16 

The struggle between capital and labor is an unequal one at 
best. It is a struggle between the bones and sinews of men and 
dollars and cents. And in that struggle is it for the Govern- 
ment to stretch forth its arm to aid the strong against the weak? 
Shall it continue, by its legislation, to elevate and enrich idleness 
on the wail and the woe of industry? 

For if the rule be correct as applied to governments as well as 
individuals, that whatever a person permits another to do, having 
the right and means to prevent it, he does himself, then indeed is 
the Government responsible for all the evils that may result from 
speculation and land monopoly in the public domain. For it is 
not denied that Congress has the power to make any regulations 
for the disposal of these lands not injurious to the general wel- 
fare. Now, when a new tract is surveyed, and you open the land 
office and expose it for sale, the man with the most money is the 
largest purchaser. The most desirable and available locations 
are seized upon by the capitalists of the country who seek that 
kind of investment. The settler who chances not to have a pre- 
emption right, or to be there at the time of sale, when he comes 
to seek a home for himself and his family must pay the speculator 
three or four hundred per cent on his investment or encounter the 
trials and hardships of a still more remote border life. And thus, 
under the operation of laws that are called equal and just, there is 
taken from the settler three or four dollars per acre and put in the 
pocket of the speculator— thus, by the operation of law, abstract- 
ing so much of his hard earnings for the benefit of capital: for 
not an hour's labor has been applied to the land since it was sold 
by the Government, nor is it more valuable to the settler. Has 
not the laborer a right to complain of legislation that compels 
him to endure greater toils and hardships, or contribute a portion 
of his earnings for the benefit of the capitalist ? But not upon the 
capitalist or the speculator is it proper that the blame should fall. 
Man must seek a livelihood and do business under the laws of the 
countrv: and whatever rights he may acquire under the laws, 
though they may be wrong, yet the well-being of society requires 
that they be respected and faithfully observed. If a person 
engage in a business legalized and regulated by the laws, and 
uses no fraud or deception in its pursuit, and evils result to the 
communitv. let them apply the remedy to the proper source: 
that is. to the lawmaking" power. The laws and the lawmakers 
are responsible for whatever evils necessarily grow out of their 
enactments. What justice can there te in the legislation of a. 
country by which the earnings of its labor are abstracted for any 
purpose without returning an equivalent? 

In order to secure to labor its earnings so far as is possible by 
legislative action , and to strengthen the elements of national great- 
ness and power, why should not the legislation of the country be 
so changed as to ]>revent for the future the evils of land monopoly 
by setting apart "the vast and unoccupied territory of the Union 
and consecrating it forever in free homes for free men? 

Mr. Maynakd. May I be allowed to ask my friend from Penn- 
eylvania a (juestion? 

Mr. Grow, Certainly. 

Mr. Maynakd. It is this: Whether he is in favor, or otherwise, 
of allowing the old soldiei or his assignee to locate his land war- 
rant on the public domain 

Mr. Grow. I would i)rovide in our land policy for securing 
homesteads to actual settlers, and whatever bounties the Govern- 
2596 



17 

ment should grant to the old soldiers I would have made in monej', 
and not in land warrants, which are bought in most cases bv the 
speculator, as an easier and cheaper mode of ac(iuiring the public 
lands. So they only facilitate land monopoly. The men who go 
forth at the call of their country to uphold its standard and vin- 
dicate its honor are deserving of a more substantial reward than 
tears to the dead and thanks to the living; but there are soldiers 
of peace as well as of war. and though no waving plume beckons 
them on to glory or to death, their dying scene is oft a crimson 
one. They fall leading the van of civihzation along untrodden 
paths and are buried in the dust of its advancing columns. No 
monument marks the scene of deadly strife, no stone their final 
resting place: the winds sighing through the branches of the 
forest alone sing their requiem. Yet they are the meritorious 
men of the Repulilic— the men who give it strength in war and 
glory in peace. The achievements of our pioneer army, from the 
day they first drove back the Indian tribes from the Atlantic sea- 
board to the present hour, have been the achievements of science 
and civilization over the elements, the wilderness, and the savage. 
If rewards or bounties are to be granted for true heroism in the 
progress of the race, none is more deserving than the pioneer who 
expels the savage and the wild beast, and opens in the wilderness 
a home for science and a pathway for civilization. 

Peace hath her victories, 

No less renowned than war. 
The paths of glory no longer lead over smoking towns and en'm- 
soned fields, but along the lanes and by-ways of human misery 
and woe, where the bones and sinews of men" are struggling with 
the elements, with the unrelenting obstacles of nature, and the 
not less unmerciful obstacles of a false civilization. The noblest 
achievement in this world's pilgrimage is to raise the fallen from 
their degradation, soothe the broken-hearted, dry the tears of woe, 
and alle^^ate the sufferings of the unfortunate in their pathway 
to the tomb. 

Go say to the raging sea, be still; 
Bid the wild, lawless winds obey thy will; 
Preach to the storm, and reason with despair; 
But tell not misery's son that life is fair. 

If you would lead the erring back from the paths of ^^ce and 
crime to virtue and to honor, give him a liome— give him a hearth- 
stone, and he will surround it with household gods. If you would 
make men wiser and better, relieve your almshouses, close the 
doors of the penitentiai-ies and break in pieces the gallows, purify 
the influences of the domestic fireside, for that is the school in 
which human character is formed, and there its destiny is shaped; 
there the soul receives its first impress and man his first lesson, and 
they go with him for weal or for woe through life. For purify- 
ing the sentiments, elevating the thoughts, and developing the 
noblest impulses of man's nature, the influences of a moral fire- 
side and an agricultural life are the noblest and the best. In the 
obscurity of the cottage, far removed from the seductive influences 
of rank and aftluence. are nourished the virtues that counteract 
the decay of human institutions, the courage that defends the 
national independence, and the industry that supports all classes 
of the State. 

It was said by Lord Chatham, in his appeal to the House of 
Commons, in 1775, to withdraw the British troops from Boston, 
that " trade, indeed, increases the glory and wealth of a country; 
2596-2 



18 

but its true strength and stamina are to be looked for in the cul- 
tivators of the land. In the simplicity of their lives is found the 
simpleness of virtue, the integrity and courage of freedom. These 
true, genuine sons of the soil are invincible."' 

The history of American prowess has recorded these words as 
prophetic. Man, in defense of his hearthstone and fireside, is in- 
vincible against a world of mercenaries. 

* * * * 4f * * 

Even if the Government had a right, based in the nature of 
things, thus to hold these lands, it would be adverse to a sound 
national policy to do so, for the real wealth of a country consists 
not in the sums of money paid into its treasiiry. but in its flocks, 
herds, and cultivated fields. Nor does its real strength consist in 
fleets and armies, but in the bones and sinews of an independent 
yeomanry and the comfort of its laboring people. Its real glory 
consists not in the splendid palace, lofty spire, or towering dome, 
but in the intelligence, comfort, and happiness of the fireside of 
its citizens. 

What constitutes a state? 
Not high-raised battlement or labored mound, 

Thic'k wall or moated gate; 
Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crowned; 

Not bays and broad-armed ports, 
Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride; 

Not starred and spangled courts. 
Where low-browed baseness wafts perfume to pride. 
No; men, high-minded men— 

Men, who their duties know. 
But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain; 

Prevent the long-aimed blow, 
And crush the tyrant while they rend the chain: 

These constitute a state. 

The prosperity of states depends not on the mass of wealth, but 
its distribution. That country is greatest and most glorious in 
which there is the greatest number of happy firesides. And if 
you would make the fireside happy, raise the fallen from their 
degradation, elevate the servile from their groveling pursuits to 
the rights and dignity of men, you must first place within their 
reach the means for supplying their pressing physical wants, so 
that religion can exert its influence on the soul and soothe the 
weary pilgrim in his pathway to the tomb. 

But as a question of revenue merely, it would be to the advan- 
tage of the Government to grant these lands in homesteads to 
actual cultivators, if thereby it was to induce the settlement of the 
Wilderness, instead of selling them to the speculator without set- 
tlement. 

The settlement of the wilderness by a thriving population is as 
much the interest of the old States as of the new. The amount 
now received by the Government of the settler, for the land, would 
enable him to furnish hinisi-lf with the necessary stock and imple- 
ments to commence its cultivation. 

For the purposes of eilucation. building railroads, opening all 
the avenues of trade, and of snhdiiing the wilderness, the best dis- 
position to be made of these lands is to grant them in limited 
quantities to the settler, and thus secure Inni in his earnings, by 
which he would have the means to starround liiniself with comfort 
and make his fireside happ}': to erect theschoolhoiTse. the chnnh, 
and all the other ornaments of a higher civilization, and rear his 
children educated and respected members of society. This policy 



19 

will not only add to the revenues of the General Government and 
the taxable property of the new States, but will increase the pro- 
ductive industry and commerce of the whole country, while 
strengthening all the elements of national greatness. 

The first step in the decline of empires is the neglect of their 
agricultural interest, and with its decay crumbles national power. 
It is the great fact stamped on all the ruins that strew the path- 
way of civilization. When the world's unwritten history shall 
be correctly deciphered, the record of the rise, progress, and fall 
of empires will be but the history of the rise, development, and 
decline of agriculture. Hooke, in describing the condition of agri- 
culture among the Romans more than two thousand years ago, 
the process of absorption of the lands by the rich, and their con- 
sequent cultivation by slaves, furnishes the student of history with 
the secret causes that undermined the Empire and destroyed its 
liberties. 

******* 

Had the policy advocated by the Gracchi, of distributing the 
public lands among the landless citizens of the nation, been 
adopted, the Roman fields would have been cultivated by free 
men instead of slaves, and there would have been a race of men 
to stay the ravages of the barbarian. The Eternal City would 
not then have fallen an easy prey to the Goth and Vandal, but 
the star of her empire might have floated in triumph long after 
the ivy twined her broken columns. 

With homes and firesides to defend, the arms and the hearts of 
an independent yeomanry are a stirer and more impi-egnable 
defense than battlement, wall, or tower. While the population 
of a country are the proprietors of the land which they till, they 
have an interest to surround their firesides with comfort and 
make their homes happy— the great incentive to industrv, frugal- 
ity, and sobriety. It is such habits alone that give security to a 
government, and form the real elements of national greatness 
and power. 

National disasters are not the growth of a day, but the fruit of 
long years of injustice and wrong. The seeds planted by false, 
pernicious legislation often require ages to germinate and ripen 
into their harvests of ruin and death. The most pernicious of all 
the baleful seeds of national existence is a policy that degrades or 
impoverishes labor. Whenever agi-icultural labor becomes dis- 
honorable, it will, of course, be confined to those who have no 
interest in the soil they till; and when the laborer ceases to have 
any interest in the land he cultivates, he ceases to have a stake in 
the advancement and good order of society, for he has nothing to 
lose, nothing to defend, nothing to hope for. The associations of 
an independent freehold are eminently calculated to ennoble and 
elevate the possessor. It is the lifespring of a manly national 
character and of a generous patriotism; a patriotism that rushes 
to the defense of the country and the vindication of its honor 
with the same zeal and alacrity that it guards the hearthstone and 
the fireside. Wherever freedom has unfurled her banner, the 
men who have rallied around to sustain and uphold it have come 
from the workshop and the field, where, inured to heat and to 
cold and to all the inclemencies of the seasons, they have acquired 
the hardihood necessary to endure the trials and privations of the 
camp. An independent yeomanry, scattered over our vast do- 
main, is the best and surest guaranty for the perpetuity of our 
liberties; for their hearts are the citadel of a nation's power, their 



20 

arms the bulwarks of liberty. Let the public domain, then, be 
set apart as the patrimony of labor, by preventing its absorption 
into large estates by capital, and its consequent cultivation by 
"tenants and slaves,'" instead of independent freeholders. 

The proposition to change our land policy, so as to accomplish 
so desirable a result, by securing to the pioneer a home on the 
public domain at the bare cost of survey and transfer, is often 
rejected by those who have given but little thought to the subject, 
as leveling and agrarian. When was there ever an effort made, 
since the world began, to wrest from power its ill-gotten gains or 
to restore to man his inalienable rights but it has been met with 
the shout of leveling and agrarian? That is the alarm cry of the 
devotee of the past, with which he ever strives to prevent all re- 
forms or innovations upon established usages. Behind such a 
bulwark old abuses intrench themselves and attempt to maintain 
their position by hurling against every assailant terms of odium 
and reproach, made so by the coloring of the adherents of pre- 
rogative and power. Until within a very recent period, the chron- 
iclers of the race have been, for the most part, sycophants of the 
reigning classes; and, being allied with the State, have glossed 
over its contemporaneous despotism and wrongs, while they have 
branded the true defenders of the rights of the people and the 
champions of honorable labor as outlaws of history. 

Because the Roman Gracchi proposed to elevate the Roman cit- 
izen, by dignifying his labor and restoring him to the rights of 
which he had been unjustly deprived by the oligarchy who con- 
trolled the State, their name was made synonymous with infamy 
and as arch disturbers of all that was good in society, till Niebuhr 
tore off the veil of two thousand years of obloquy and vindicated 
to future times their memories as true defenders of the rights of 
the people and advocates of the best interests and glory of their 
country. Such has been the fate of the world's reformers. Is xt 
not time to learn wisdom from the chronicles of the past and cease 
a blind reverence for customs or institutions because of their gray 
age? Why should not American statesmen adapt the legislation 
of the country to the development of its material resources, the 
promotion of "its industrial interests, and thereby dignify its labor 
anil make strong the prime elements of national power? 

Let this vast domain, then, be set apart and consecrated as a 
patrimony to the sons of toil; close the land office forever against 
the speculator, and thereby prevent the capital of the country 
seeking that kind of investment, from absorbing the hard earnings 
of labor without rendering an equivalent. While the laborer is 
thus crushed by this system established by the Government, by 
which so large an amount is abstracted from his earnings for the 
benefit of the speculator, in addition to all the other disadvantages 
that ever beset the unequal struggle between the bones and sinews 
of men and dollars and cents, what wonder is it that misery and 
want so often sit at his fireside, and penury and sorrow surround 
his deathbed? 

While the pioneer spirit goes forth into the wilderness, snatch- 
ing new areas from the wild beast, and bequeathing them a legacy 
to civilized man, let not the Government dampen his ardor and 
palsy his arm by legislation that places him in the power of soul- 
less "capital and grasping speculation; for upon his wild battle- 
field these are the only foes that his own stern heart and right 
arm can not vanquish. 

O 



BIMETALLISM IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT 
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT. 



SPEECH 



HON. GALUSHA A. GROW, 



OF PENNSYLVANIA, 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



FEBRUARY 26, 1897. 



■WASHINGTOM. 

1897. 



BIMETALLISM IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL 
AGREEMENT. 



The House having under consideg-ation the bill (S. 3547) to provide for the 
representation of the United States by commissioners at any mternational 
monetary conference hereafter to be called— 

Mr. GROW said: . ^ . , ,^ ^ 

Mr. Speaker: Bv reason of the relative production of gold and 
silver in the world" for the last forty years, without some agree- 
ment among commercial nations for the use of silver as a money 
metal, the question of a standard of value in tne money unit would 
be no longer one of himetallism— that is. of gold and silver circu- 
lating on a parity with each other as standard money of ultimate 
redemption. 

BIMETALLISM ONLY BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT. 

Without such agreement the question will be simply whether 
the standard of value shall be gold, with silver circulating in sub- 
sidiary coin, or whether the standard shall be silver alone, with- 
out any gold in circulation as money. 

For more than five hundred years in all nations it has been a 
conceded fact, which Sir Thomas Gresham, master of the British 
mint under Queen Elizabeth, formulated about 1560 in the follow- 
ing words, known since that time as Gresham's law: 

When two sorts of coin are cui-rent in the same nation of like value by 
denomination, but not intrinsically, that is, in market value, that which Las 
the least value will be current, and the other as much as possible will be 
hoarded or melted or exported. 

This statement of a fact of universal application in the expe- 
rience of nations through all time varies in its wording but little 
from that of Nicolas Oresme, a Frenchman, one of the counselors 
of Charles V in his treatise on money in 1370, almost two hundred 
years before Gresham. Oresme's statement is: 

That the legal ratio of coins must conform strictly to the relative market 
value of the metals; that if the fixed legal ratio of corns differs from the mar- 
ket value of the metals, the coin which is undervalued entirely disappears 
from circulation. 

In our present money circulation there are two sorts of coin, 
one of gold, the other of silver; of the same value by denomina- 
tion, but not intrinsically, i. e., in market value. They both cir- 
culate now on a parity with each other, because the Government 
has pledged its faith, in a duly enacted law. to keep them so, and 
has promised to keep in its Treasury not less than $100,000,000 m 
gold for such purpose. By reason of that pledge, an American 
silver dollar buys in market just as much of anything as a gold 
dollar. And a paper dollar buys just as much of anything as 
either a silver or a gold dollar. Talce away that pledge, which is 
entirely independent of our coinage laws, and our gold and silver 
coins would immediat ly come under the operation of Gresham's 
law, which is just as fixed and immutable as Newton's law of 
gravitation. Take away this Government pledge, and so long as 
silver should have a less market value than its denomination, 
£613 8 



gold would not circulate as money. There would then be only 
silver in circulation so long as there should be any considerable 
difference in the market value of the two metals, unless both were 
kept in circulation by some specific agreement among the nations. 

Many persons believe that the passage by Congress of a law to 
reopen the mints of the United States to the free and unrestricted 
coinage of silver at a ratio of value of 16 ounces of silver to 1 
ounce of gold would of itself restore the silver of the world to 
its former market price of $1.29 cents an ounce, vAule it is now 
Belling in all the markets of the world for less than 63 cents an 
ounce, making the commercial value of our silver dollar aboujt 53 
cents. In support of such belief it is claimed that this nation is 
great enough, rich enough, and powerful enough to legislate on 
any subject in its own way. Whatever may be claimed for this 
nation in greatness and power, in territorial extent, in vastness 
of material resources, and in its ever-increasing wealth and pop- 
ulation — gi"ant it all — but this nation is not great enough, rich 
enough, or powerful enough, nor is any other nation, nor are all 
the nations of the world put together great enough, or powerful 
enough, to make 53 cents in commercial value buy in the markets 
of the world 100 cents in commercial value. This nation is, how- 
ever, great enough and powerful enough, and so is any other 
nation, no matter how poor or weak it may be, to make 53 cents 
in commercial value pay a debt to its own citizens of 100 cents. 

There is no nation on the face of the earth, and there never will 
be one, great enough or powerful enough to fix by law the value 
in the money unit except for debt paying. Law everywhere makes 
and fixes the unit of valve, but the dealers in the commodities for 
which money is exchanged make and fix the real value in the unit. 
Value in money for trade and commerce is no more the creature 
of law than is the value in flocks, herds, and cultivated fields. 
The expectation of acquiring wealth through some theory of legis- 
lation has always been more alluring to mankind than by the slow 
process of labor and economy. But it is not in the power of hu- 
man ingenuity to devise any scheme by which debased or depre- 
ciated money can be used successfully to develop the industries of 
a country or add to the wealth of a nation. 

BUSINESS MAKES MONEY PLENTY. 

The advocates of free and unrestricted coinage of silver, no mat- 
ter what its commercial value may be, have a ready answer to all 
objections in the question. How can there be too much money? 
That depends upon its quality. If it is poor money, there is always 
too much. If good money, then never too much, if there is any 
use for it. The mere existence of money, no matter how much 
there may be, creates no business. Money not in circulation 
neither makes business nor adds anything to what is called pros- 
perity. Biisiness puts money into circulation, not the making of 
it. While there can not be great prosperity without money, yet 
business itself must first call for capital, for its development or its 
enlargement. And capital, which is only accumulated wealth, 
then furnishes the money for such purpose. Thus is created the 
demand for labor, and eniployment gives to labor its purchasing 
ability, for without employment it has none. In that way comes 
what is called prosperity. The mere fact of an abundance of money 
in existence but not in circulation can not make it. There never 
has been so large an amount of money in this country in time of 
peace as there has been for the last five or six years. Yet business 



never languished more, and the ability of labor to buy has seldom, 
if ever, been less. 

There is of money in the country now over sixteen hiindred mil- 
lion dollars, all good money, based on gold, A per capita, in round 
numbers, of 824, being greater than that of any nation, except 
France, Belgium. Australia, and the Netherlands. It is $3 per 
capita greater than the per capita in Great Britain . The per capita 
in gold and silver in this country is equal to that of Great Britain, 
and greater than that of any other nation except those already 
mentioned. France has more gold and silver and less paper than 
any nation. Her per capita is greater than that of any other na- 
tion, being $35.97, with only 84 cents of it in paper. 

MONEY PER CAPITA. 

The following table shows the money per capita and the kind of 
money in the seven nations having tlie largest money per capita, 
and the monetary system of the nation: 



Nation. 


Gold. 


SUver. 


Paper. 


Total. 


Monetary system. 


France 


$22.19 
8.72 
24.47 
6.21 
8.78 
14.91 
12.21 


S12.94 
8.71 
1.49 
11.96 
8.89 
2.96 
4.20 


$0.84 
10.38 

""e'.m 

5.92 
2.91 
1.18 


$.35.97 
27.81 
25.96 
24.25 
23. .59 
20.78 
17.59 


Gold and silver. 


Belgium 

Australia 


Do. 

Gold. 


Netherlands 


Gold and silver. 
Do. 


United Kingdom 


Gold. 


Germany 


Do. 



There is no single silver standard nation in the world that has a 
money per capita of over $18. Mexico has $4.95 and Russia has 
$8.46. These two nations are fair representatives of the silver 
nations in their per capita. 

The coinage of silver money of all denominations in the mints 
of the United States from April. 1792. to February. 1873. was 
$143,813,598.70; since 1873 to December. 1895. it has been $543, 794,- 
030.70, being about four times greater in coinage value for these 
twenty-two years since 1873 than for the eightj'-one years preced- 
ing. The money per capita now is greater than ever before in 
time of peace. Ten years preceding 1892, which is conceded by 
everybody to be a period of equal if not greater business prosperity 
than in an 3' other like period in our history, there was through it 
all the same kind of money we have nowl except that there was 
less per capita and less of silver money. Whatever depression, 
therefore, there may be in the business of the country, or want of 
prosperity in its industries at this time, can not possibly be caused 
by a lack of money, especially in the coinage of silver. 

COINAGE OF GOLD AND SILVER. 

The coinage of silver money in the United States for the ten 
years preceding 1893, the year the law was repealed for Govern- 
ment purchase of silver bullion, was, coinage value, $301,926,941, 
and the coinage of gold for the same time was $271,095,731, the 
silver coinage for the ten years being $31,000,000 greater than the 
gold. The workVs coinage of silver money for the ten years pre- 
ceding 1893 was, coinage value, $1,340,558,658, and the world's 
coinage of gold for the same period was $1,264,181,751, the silver 
coinage of the world for these ten years being $76,000,000 greater 
than the gold. For the year i*^'73 the world's coinage of silver 
money, coinage value, was about one-half as much as the coinage 
S6U 



6 



of gold. For the year 1888 the world's coinage of gold and silver 
was almost identically the same, each being, in round numbers, 
§133,000,000. For the three years ending with 1895 the world's 
coinage of gold alone was $691, 042. 987, being a larger average 
annual coinage of gold than the average annual coinage of both 
gold and silver from 1881 to 1887. Whatever may be the condi- 
tion, therefore, of the business of this country at the present time 
can not possibly result from too little coinage of silver money 
any more than from too little coinage of gold. For the coinage 
of silver, like its production in the last twenty years, has greatly 
exceeded that of any equal period in the history of mankind. The 
public mind at this time is not so much disturljed about the quan- 
tity of money as about its quality, and as to what may belts char- 
acter in the future. 

Jefferson, in his notes on coinage in 1786 to Robert Morris, then 
Superintendent of Finance, says: 

The proportion between the value of gold and silver is a mercantile prob- 
lem altogether. Just principles will lead us to disregard legal proportions 
altogether and inquire into the market price of gold in the several countries 
witii which we shall principally be connected in commerce, and to take an 
average from them. 

He recommended "the appointment of persons to inquire what 
are the proportions between the volume of the value of fine gold 
and fine silver at the markets of the several countries with which 
we are, or probably may be, connected in commerce, and what 
would be the proper proportion here, having regard to the average 
of the value at these markets."' Jefferson, unlike many of the 
professed statesmen of to-day. did not think it wise to attempt to 
settle legal proportions between gold and silver without reference 
to the market value of the metals in the nations with which we 
should be connected in commerce. That the present market value 
of silver could be inaterially changed by the mere passage of a law 
by Congress for its free coinage at its old ratio of valiie to gold 
would seem to be utterly impossible, in view of the relative pro- 
duction of gold and silver in the world since 1850 and the decline 
in the market value of silver since 1859. 

world's production of gold and silver. 

The following statements of the production of gold and silver, 
including market price and coinage value of silver, are based upon 
the tables compiled by Dr. Adolph Sietbeer, who is. a'^ all know, 
a most competent and reliable authority on these subjects. His 
tables of production and price, with the additions of the Directors 
of the Mint, for four hundred years are embodied in the Annual 
Report of the Director of the United States Mint for 1895 and 1896. 

The following table shows the world's production of gold and 
silver, coinage value, from 1811 to lSi)5. both years inclusive, in 
periods of ten years each, except for the last five years: 



Years. 


Gold. 


Silver. 


1841-50 .... 


$363,938,000 

],;j;5:j,9hi,ooo 
1,:.'0:3,015,000 
1,1.50,814,000 
1,060,055,600 
815,664,500 


$334,400,000 


18.51-60 


373,361,000 


18f,l-70 


507,174,(100 


1871-80 


918.578,000 


1881-90 


1,398, 846, (KXI 


18ai-95 


1,035,743,300 








.5, 633, .530, 100 


4,133.603,300 







2ol2 



The silver production of the world, coinage value, for the twenty 
years from ISoo to and including 187.") was $1,104,588,000; for the 
twenty years from 1875 to and including 1895 it was $3,833,845,200, 
being $1,729,357,200 greater for the twenty years ending with 1895 
than for the twenty years ending with 1875. While the silver 
production of the world, coinage value, for the ten years ending 
with 1860 was less than a third in value of the gold production 
for that period, the production for the ten years ending with 1895 
was $349,678,100 greater in value than the gold production for 
the same period. 

The following table shows tlie production of gold and silver in 
the world in ounces and coinage value for each of the following 
years: 



Year. 


Gold. 


Silver. 


Ounces. 


Value. 


Ounces. 


Value. 


1840 


652,291 
1.760,502 
6.486,262 
6.270,086 
9,688,821 


$1.3.484,000 
36,393,000 
134,083,000 
139,614,000 
200,285,700 


19,175,867 
25,090,342 
29, 093, 428 
45,051,.5a3 
169, ISO, 245 


$24, 793, 000 


1850 


32,440,000 


1860 


37,618,000 
.'J5,6ffi!,000 
218, 738, 100 


1870 

1895 







The great increase in the world's annual production of gold 
began in 1850. The great increase in silver began in 1860. Tho 
world's production of silver, coinage value, for the year 1840 was, 
in round numbers, $35,000,000; for the year 1860 it was, in round 
numbers, $38,000,000, being less than a third in value of the gold 
for that year. Its production for the year 1870 was $56,000,000, 
and for 1895, m round numbers, it was $319,000,000. 

MARKET PRICE OF SILVER. 

The world's annual production of silver and market price since 
1859 was as follows: 



Year. 


Ounces. 


Coinage 
value. 


Market 
price. 


Price less 
than 1859. 


18.59 


29,095,428 
&5, 401, 972 
4;3,051,583 
63,317,814 
70,996,708 
78,775,602 
93,297,290 
167,752,561 


$37,618,000 
4.5,772,000 
55,66:3,000 
81,864,000 
91,58.5,753 
101,851,000 
130,636,800 
216,893,300 


SI. 36 
1.33i 
1.331 
1.39J 
1.24i 
l.l4 
.99i 
.63^ 




1861. 


.73* 


1870 


1873 


1875 . 


1880 


1886 


1894 





In 1859 the market value of silver was $1.36 an ounce, the high- 
est price ever known, before or since. Its market price in 1861 
was$1.33i an ounce, being 3i cents an ounce less than in 1859; the 
world's production for that j'ear, coinage value, in round num- 
bers was $46,000,000. Its market price in 1870 was $1.33f an 
ounce, being 3^ cents less than in 1859, and its production for that 
year was in round numbers $56,000,000. Its market price in 1873 
was $1.29i an ounce, being 6 J cents an ounce less than in 1859, and 
the world's production for the year 1873 was in round numbers 
$83,000,000. Its market price in 1875 was $1.34^, being Hi cents 
less than in 1859; the world's production that year was in round 
numbers $93,000,000. Its market price in 1880 was $1.14^, being 

2612 



2U cents less than in 1859; the world's production was in round 
numbers S102.0U0.000. Its market price in 1886 was 99^ cents an 
ounce, being 36^ cents an ounce less than in 1859: the world's pro- 
duction for that year was in round numbers $121,000,000. Its 
market price in 1894 was about 63i cents an oiince, bemg 73 cents 
an ounce less than in 1859: the world's production for 1894 was 
in round numbers $217,000,000. 

This great increase in the world's production of silver tor the 
last twenty years and the present production of both gold and sil- 
ver with their prospective increase for the future, renders it abso- 
lutely impossible for the free coinage of silver by this nation alone 
at a ratio of value to gold of 16 to 1 to add materially to the mar- 
ket value of silver. 

COINAGE CREATES NO VALUE. 

Reopening the mints to free and unrestricted coinage of silver 
would not create a single purchaser for it. The owners of the 
bullion brought to the mints would be the owners of the money 
coined therefrom. Coinage itself only stamps upon the com its 
denomination, which is in reality only the same thing as stamp- 
ing on it the weight and fineness of the metal out of which it is 
coined. That is all that law can do. except to fix the amount of 
indebtedness which the denomination of the com would pay 
within the jurisdiction of the law. Law makes and hxes its 
denomination and debt-paying value. Its commercial value is 
fixed by the dealers in the commodities for which it is exchanged. 
As the uses of money for debt paying are so much less than its 
uses for trade and business, if its commercial value is much less 
than its debt paying value it will fall to its commercial value tor 
any purpose after the debts are paid existing at the time ot its 
coinage or the fall in its market value. For all creditors, before 
creating a debt, if thev know what the debt can be paid m. wiJi 
see to it that the amount of the debt is enough greater to meet 
the difference, whatever it may be, in the commercial value and 
the debt-paving value of the legal tender to be received. 

With free coinage the owner of silver bullion would have two 
ways of disposing of it. One, to sell it in the market, just as he does 
now; the other, to take it to the mint and have it coined After 
coinage he would then have two methods of disposing of his com. 
One fo pay his own debts, if he had any: the other would be to buy 
something with it. In debt paying it would pass at its denomina- 
tional value to a person within the jurisdiction of the law under 
which it was coined. Its purchasing value in business would be 
its commercial value; that is. the market price ot the metal out 
of which it mav be coined. And there is no ingenuity of the hu- 
man intellect that could by law change these conditions of trade. 
Since Abraham paid Ephron for the Cave of Machpelah 400 
shekels of silver, "current money with the merchant,' mankind 
in business transactions with each other have dealt m realities, 
not in fictions: and that will continue to be the case until the 
acquisition of property ceases to be a desire of the human heart 
and the love of money is no longer an incentive to action. In this 
earliest business transaction settled with money (of which we 
have anv account), it was money current wnih the merchant. 
From that time to this the merchant— that is. the dealer m prop- 
erty for which mouev is exchanged— determines what money shall 
be current by fixing its commercial value, in receiving or rejecting 
it in trade for commodities, or in payment for property purcliasea. 



The decline in market value of silver began while all the mints 
of the world were open to its free coinage, just as they had been 
for years before. No mint of any nation was closed before 1S70. 
Silver, with its vearlv increasing production, has continued to 
decline in market price since 1860, and it never has at any time 
regained the market price it sold for in 1870. Without some 
agreement, therefore, with the leading commercial nations as to 
the use of silver as a money metal, three grave questions in our 
monetary affairs Mill be presented for final settlement: First, 
whether' we shall have a single silver standard, without any gold 
circulating as money; second, whether we shall continue the 
gold standard that we now have, with the pledge of the Govern- 
ment to keep silver money in circulation as now coined on a 
parity with gold; third, whether we shall have a single gold 
standard with silver circulating in subsidiary com, on its market 
value for coinage, just as we had both metals from 1806 to 1878. 

Without some agreement with or concurrent action by other 
nations for the use of silver as a money metal the result of re- 
opening the mints of the United States to the free and unrestricted 
coinage of silver at a ratio of value of 16 ounces of silver to 1 ounce 
of gold, with the present market value of silver, woul-d be: First, 
to drive all gold in this country out of circulation as money. Sec- 
ond, all debts due American citizens would be paid, if paid at all, 
at about 50 cents on the dollar, while all debts of American citizens 
diie to citizens of foreign countries, not having a single silver 
standard, must be paid, if paid at all, at 100 cents on the dollar. 
A foreigner could buy silver bullion at the present market price 
of silver costing about $500,000. and take it to the mints of the 
United States, have it coined into about 1,000,000 of our standard 
dollars, and with such dollars he could pay a million dollars of 
indebtedness to citizens of this country, while an American citi- 
zen with a million of our standard silver dollars could pay only 
about $500,000 of indebtedness to citizens in foreign countries not 
having a single silver standard. Third, while the rate of wages 
would probably remain about the same as now, they would be pay- 
able in this depreciated silver money, which would then be the 
stcmdard in our money unit. Thus would be established in reality 
for this country a single silver standard of money. 

Should we keep the double standard as we now have it, by rea- 
son of the guaranty or pledge of the Government to keep silver, 
as money, on a parity with gold, no matter what the market value 
or the ratio of coinage might be, it would, so far as the Govern- 
ment is concerned, be in reality the same as having a single gold 
standard. For in all business fairness and honest dealing, even 
without such guaranty or pledge, the Government must pay gold 
on all its obligations, unless some other kind of payment is specif- 
ically named. In all cases where the debtor does not make legal 
tenders for the payment of debts, the debtor has the option of 
paving in any tender, if there is more than one; yet where the 
debtor himself makes the legal tenders, his creditors have the op- 
tion as to which legal tender, if there is more than one, they will 
receive in payment of their debt. If that were not the case, then 
the debtor could make a worthless tender for the payment of 
debts, while there might be a good one in existence. In such case, 
if the debtor could select the legal tender for the payment of his 
debt, it would be a violation of the first great precept in equity, 
that the wrongdoer can not take advantage of his own wrong. 
&il2 



10 

So long as 37U gi'ains of pure silver— the weight fixed by onr 
coinage law for a dollar in silver— was the equivalent in mar- 
ket value of 23.22 grains of pure gold— the weight fixed by our 
coinage law for a dollar in gold— the market value of each kept 
them as money, onaparity with each other, without any Govern- 
ment pledge or guarantee. So long as silver bullion sold m mar- 
ket for $1.29 an ounce, and it was coined into money at a ratio of 
16 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold, each would exchange for 
the other, as 2 bushels of corn at 50 cents a bushel would be the 
equivalent of 1 bushel of wheat at a dollar, provided each sold in 
market as readily as the other at these prices. But when silver 
bullion of the same fineness fell in market value below §1.29 an 
ounce, then the paritv in money value between it and gold was 
broken. At SI. 29 an ounce 16 ounces of silver was the equivalent 
in market value of 1 ounce of gold, and each was selling in mar- 
ket as readily as the other. 

FREE COINAGE OF GOLD AND SILVER. 

So long as silver retained a market price of $1.29 an ounce, indi- 
viduals owning silver bullion, the same as those owning gold 
bullion, could take it to the mint and have it coined into money 
of such denominations as might be fixed by law, without expense 
to themselves, for the reason that the silver was of the same mar- 
ket value before coinage as after. Its coinag^N therefore, being 
only for the convenience of the public in doing business, was with- 
out expense to the owner, so it was called free coinage. But the 
owner of the bullion put the money coined into circulation and 
had whatever advantage might result from changing it from bul- 
lion to monev. It made no difference how much silver bullion was 
coined into nioney so long as its market value at the relative ratio 
of coinage with gold was the same. That is, so long as 16 ounces 
of silver was equivalent, or nearly so, in market value to 1 ounce 
of gold, the mints of the world, were everywhere open to the unre- 
stricted coinage of silver. From 1792 to 1878 the mints of the 
United States were open to the free and unrestricted coinage of 
silver, except that the coinage of silver dollars was suspended from 
1806 to 1834 by an order of Jefferson. The total coinage of silver 
of all denominations from 1792 to 1873 in the mints of the United 
States was done for individuals, and amounted to $143,813, )98. 
Since 1878 all coinage of silver in the mints of the United States 
has been from bullion purchased by the Government, and the 
mints have been closed to the coinage of silver for individuals. 
But the total coinage of silver of all denominations from 1873 
to December 31, 1895, was. as before stated, §5-13,794,030, being 
almost four times greater in these twenty-two years than for the 
eighty-one vears preceding. For each of these silver dollars, or 
for the certificate which represents them, so coined and paid out 
the Government has received 100 cents, no matter what it paid 
for the bullion it purchased or what the market value of silver 
may have been. 

Hence in business fairness the Government pledge to keep silver 
money on a parity with gold. But the reopening of our mints to 
the free and unrestricted coinage of silver at the old ratio of 16 
to 1 would of nec^essity change all this. Tlie Government would 
then cease to coin on its own account, and individuals would again 
put silver nioney into circulation coined out of their own bullion; 
and whatever profit or advantage there might be in the coinage 

2B13 



11 

would be theirs instead of the Govenimenfs. The Governtnent 
could not. tlierefore, stand responsible for the money thus coined, 
and it would go forth, as in all cases of free and unrestricted 
coinage of money, without any redeemer except its own intrinsic 
value. 

USE OF CREDIT INSTRUMENTALITIES. 

If it would not be advisable for this nation to adopt either of the 
foregoing plans in its monetary affairs, then the only other alter- 
native, in case of no agreement among the nations, would be a 
single gold standard in our money unit, with silver circulating as 
subsidiary coin. Whether that would be advisable and could be 
done successfully would depend, first, upon whether there is gold 
enough in the world for the workVs business should all nations 
adopt it as the standard in their money of ultimate redemption, 
and whether, in case that should be done, there would be a rea- 
sonable probability that the future annual production of gold 
would be sufficient for any increase there might be in the world's 
business. To ascertain whether such a result would be possible, 
there are many considerations to be considered in connection there- 
with, and upon which ultimate success would largely, if not 
wholly, depend. 

Reliable statistics show that of all the business transactions of 
the people of commercial nations as now transacted not to exceed 
8 per cent of the volume of such transactions are made with 
actual money. The other 92 per ce»nt is made with what is called 
substitute money or credit, like bank bills, bills of exchange, 
checks, drafts, letters of credit, and certificates of various kinds. 
This substitute or credit money answers just as well if not better 
for the transaction of business, if it is at all times convertible at 
the will of the holder at its face value into money of real or com- 
mercial value, commonly called intrinsic value. To illustrate, 
1,000 persons owe each to the other $1. The first one has a dol- 
lar deposited in the bank. He draws a check on the bank for a 
dollar and passes it to his creditor, who takes it, if he believes it 
will be paid when presented at the bank. The second one does the 
same, and so it passes from one to the other until it again reaches 
the di-awer of the check. One thousand dollars of indebtedness has 
been discharged and not a dollar in actual money has been used 
in doing it. This process is the same in large or small transactions 
Ijy which business is done on what is called credit. But it could 
not be done at all without the ac.tual dollar, which is called tli^ 
money of ultimate redemption, nor without confidence that the 
dollar itself would be paid when the check should be presented. 
Without such confidence the dollar itself would have to be used 
in each transaction. 

While the check was the instrument used to discharge $1,000 of 
indebtedness, yet the check itself was not paid, and no matter 
how many times it might be passed it would not be' paid until the 
holder received for it $1 in commercial value. By its use the cred- 
itor simply exchanges one debtor for another. Bat without the 
confidence that the dollar of commercial value promised would 
be paid whenever the check should be presented, the first creditor 
to whom it should be offered would refuse to take it. and so on 
with every other one. The same would be true with the purchaser 
of commodities. No one would take the check for his commodity 
except in full faith and confidence that the dollar of commercial 
value which it promised was on deposit to be paid whenever called 
2612 



12 

for. Law makes all the regulations for the use of substitute 
money, and makes and fixes the money unit in the standard of 
value, but can not make or fix the value in the unit itself except 
for debt paying. There must therefore be the actual commercial 
value in the money of ultimate redemption called for in all this 
substitute money, or it would be no better than the paper rags of 
which it is composed. 

The record of the clearing house of the city of New York, 
where all the business transactions passing through the banks of 
that city are settled daily, shows that not more than 8 per cent of 
the amount of biisiness transactions are settle* with actual money. 
The following statement is taken from the annual report of the 
clearing house of New York City for the year 1895. 

The clearing-house transactions for the year have been as fol- 
lows: 

Exchanges $:is,264,379,126.23 

Balances l,896,574,a^9.11 

Total transactions. 30,160,953,475.34 

The average daily transactions: 

Exchanges .--- 193,670,095.49 

Balances 6,214.276.55 

Total- 98,888,372.04 

The average daily transactions for 1895, in round numbers, were 
$100,000,000. The actuJ money used in settling the final balance 
was. in round numbers, §6,000.000. As standard or com money of 
commercial value is not consumed or destroyed, the same $6,000,- 
000 would pay the balance of §100,000.000 of transaction? the next 
day just the same, and so on through the j-ear. From bank reports 
and reliable estimates there is at this time in this country about 
$600,000,000 in gold. That is a sufficient amount of actual stand- 
ard money with our present facilities of communication and trans- 
portation to sustain in ordinary times of business confidence a vol- 
ume of daily business transactions of ten thousand million dollars; 
which would be one hundred times greater than the daily busi- 
ness transactions of the city of New York, as shown by the report 
of its clearing house. 

While this 8 per cent of the volume of business transactions in 
real money, that is. money of intrinsic vahie, might be sufficient 
in times of business confidence, yet to make sure that such confi- 
dence would not be injtiriously affected in times of panicky dis- 
trust it is necessary that there should be in existence a larger 
amount of real money of ultimate redemption than 8 per cent of 
the volume of ordinary business transactions. Exactly how much 
larger it should be is not easily determined. That would depend 
upon facilities for communication and the cost and time in trans- 
jtortation. Less money would be required the greater the facili- 
ties, and the less the time and the cost in both communication and 
tran.sportation. It would depend also largely upon what Avas 
used as money, and what was the standard of value in the money 
unit. 

STANDARD MONEY. 

What is money? What are its uses, and how can it be affected 
by law? Money is what is used to facilitate the exchange of com- 
modities and the transfer of property, and to pay for the properly 
aiia 



13 

transferred, and the difference in the values of the commodities 
exchanged. The essential requisites for standard money, that is, 
money of ultimate redemption, are: 

First. That it shall retain the same value when paid out that it 
had when it was received; otherwise some one would be a loser 
by its use. 

Second. That it shall contain the greatest amount of commercial 
yalue in the smallest space; for weight and bulk affects both con- 
venience and expense in its use. 

Third. That it shall be regarded by all who use it of the same 
commercial value; otherwise the uncertainty in the discounts or 
premiums to be agreed upon would destroy its uniform and cer- 
tain value. 

Fourth. That it shall be of a substance indestructible by fire, 
thus avoiding loss or the risk and expense of insurance. 

Gold possesses all these requisites for such money in a greater 
degree than any other known substance: hence it has been used as 
money by all commercial nations. An additional reason to the in- 
herent qualities already mentioned why gold is preferable as money 
over any other known metal is that it varies less in amount and 
cost of production from year to year, as proven by the experience 
of four hundred years, if not for all time. Another reason in its 
favor, the others being conceded, is its beauty. Everywhere and 
in everything, all else being equal, beauty rules the world. Silver 
has one of the requisites of standard money, the same as gold; it 
is indestructible by fire; but in all other respects it is not equal to 
gold as a money metal. While both gold and silver have been 
used as money from the earliest times, "yet gold has always been 
regarded as the most desirable. In our earliest record of man- 
kind, one branch of the river that went out of the Garden of Eden 
compasseth the land of good gold. 

How is the standard of value in money fixed and what are its 
requisites? The standard or measure of anything must partake of 
the nature of the thing of which it is the standard. If it is the 
standard of length, it must itself have length, like the yardstick. 
If it is the standard of weight, it must itself have weight, like the 
pound. So of the standard of cubic contents, like the bushel. In 
the standards and units of weights and measures value is not 
involved; therefore law makes and fixes the standard. The words 
of the Constitution are: 

Congress may coin money, regulate the value thereof, and fix the stand- 
ard of weights and measures. 

Law makes and fixes the unit of value, just as it makes and 
fixes the unit of weights and measures: but it does not make or 
fix real value in one case any more than in the other. It regu- 
lates the relative value in one case and fixes the standard in the 
other. It regulates the value in money by fixing the alloy and 
the relative weights of the metals in exchangeable value. 

THE UNIT OF VALUE. 

The units fixed by law are only part of the arithmetic intended 
to facilitate a final settlement and payment of balances in business 
transactions. With us the unit of value is a dollar. In England 
it is a pound sterling. In France it is a franc, and soon, differing 
in different nations. These units differing in different nations, 
made by law for convenience, could be changed into any others, 
and the new ones would answer just as well; but the value in the 

3613 



14 

money unit itself is not made by law. That the value in the stand- 
ard of value varies with the amount of commodities, like wheat, 
corn, or cotton, which it would buy at different times is a perfect 
absurdity. If that was the case, then the commodities, varying in 
their production with the seasons, would be the standard of value. 
The standard of value could not itself be changing with abundant 
or short crops, or by decreasing or increasing demand for them. 
As the standard of value measures the value in all commodities, it 
can not itself be changing in its own value by the increasing or 
lessening quantity of any commodity. 

The standard of value in the money unit of nations is a certain 
number of grains of gold, not so many bushels of potatoes, beets, 
or onions. The value of a grain of gold of certain fineness has 
been fixed by the acquiescing consent, the consensus of opinion of 
commercial nations, and it is of the same commercial value in 
them all. It is an absurdity that the standard of value by which 
the value in all commodities is measured could itself vary with 
the seasons, hot or cold, wet or dry, upon which depend the sup- 
ply and demand of the commodities produced. Abundant or 
short crops, supply and demand in commodities, determine how 
many grains of gold shall be paid for them at different times. And 
the number of grains of gold will vary with the supply and demand 
of the commodity; but the value of the grain of gold itself does 
not vary, and can not while it continues to be the standard. If it 
did. it would no longer be a standard any more than would a yard- 
stick 36 inches long be the standard of the yard in length if it was 
expanding and contracting with wet or dry weather. 

In the report to Congress made by Robert Morris in 1783 on 
coinage and establishing a mint he says: 

It is right that money should acquire a value as money, distinct from that 
which it possesses as a commodity, in order that it should be a fixed rule 
whereby to measure the value of all other things. 

Unlike the wise statesmen of our times, he did not think all other 
things called commodities coiild measure the value in gold or in 
the standard of the money unit. A grain of gold is the unit in 
weight of the money standard of value in all commercial nations 
to-day, and by it is settled and paid the balances in trade of them 
all, no matter whether gold or silver standard nations, in their 
domestic policy. Twenty-three and twenty- two hundredths grains 
of gold of a certain fineness is a dollar in our legal unit of value. 
A himdred and thirteen and one-tenth grains of gold of a certain 
fineness is a pound sterling in the legal unit of value in English 
money. But the value of the grain of gold is the same in either. 
Four cents three mills and a fraction is its value in our money, 
and it is eciuivalent to that value in the money of any commercial 
nation. Multiply 38.22— the number of grains in our dollar— by 
four cents three mills and a fraction, and the sum will be within 
a small fraction of 100 cents— i. e., our dollar. Multiply 113.1 — 
the numl)er of grains of gold in a pound sterling— by four cents 
three mills and a fraction, and the sum will be $4.8(1 and a frac- 
tion—the value of a pound sterling in our money, without refer- 
ence to exchange. So with the gold in the money unit of any 
nation. The grain of gold of a certain fineness is everywhere the 
same in standard value, and what are called premiums or dis- 
counts are in reality only the discounts or varying amounts in 
value of what is to be exchanged for the gold. 



15 



PURCHASING POWER OF GOLD. 



We hear mncli about the purchasing power of gold varying at 
different times, implying that the value of the gold unit in the 
standard of value itself is of greater or less value at one time than 
another. This is a confusion of terms in the use of language. 
The cheapening of the cost of commodities by reason of inventions 
in labor-saving machinery, greater skill in various appliances of 
human ingenuity, may so* reduce the cost of any commodity that 
the same number of grains of gold will purchase a much larger 
quantity at one time than another, the supply and demand re- 
maining the same; but the value in a grain of gold would be the 
same in either case, and must continue to be the same so long aa 
it is the standard of value. Will anyone contend that because 
wheat sold six months ago for 50 cents a bushel and now sells for 
$1 the value in the grain or ounce of gold that paid for it is 
now one-half what it was six months ago? Can the value in the 
grain of gold itself, in the money unit of the standard of value, 
which measures the value in all commodities, be varying with the 
supply and demand of the commodities themselves? It so, then 
there is no fixed standard of value independent of the supply and 
demand of the commodities. If that were the case, then the value 
in the money unit of the standard of value shrinks and expands to 
meet the conditions of supply and demand, and what is called the 
purchasing power of gold would then be greatest when the supply 
of commodities is greatest and the demand least, no matter what 
the cost of production might be, and vice versa in their supply 
and demand. 

The value of the grain of gold in the money iinit of the stand- 
ard of value must remain the same through the A'arying condi- 
tions of supply and demand and cost of production in commodities, 
or there could be no such thing as a fixed standard of value. If 
that is not the case, then it is possible to have a fixed standard of 
weights and measures, but impossible to have a fixed standard 
of value, the most essential thing in all the business affairs of life, 
that will not be varying with the supply and demand and cost of 
production of commodities, the value of which is to be measured 
by the standard itself. The greater purchasing power of gold at 
one time over another consists in the cheapening of the cost, or the 
increase of supply over demand, of the commodities purchased, and 
not in an absolute increase in the value of a grain of gold. It may 
take more grains of gold at one time than another to buy the same 
quantity or amount of commodities, by reason of their greater or 
less cost in labor, by abundant or short supplies; but the real value 
in the grain of gold in the money unit of the standard of value 
must remain the same, and the variation in the amount or quan- 
tity of commodities that it will buy is not in the value of the 
unit, but in the greater or less cost of, or the respective supply 
and demand of, what is to be exchanged for it. No matter how 
many grains of gold, more or less, any commodity may at any 
given time command in the market, the value in the grain of gold 
itself continues the same, and that must necessarily be the case 
so long as it is the standard of value in the money unit of nations. 
It can no more be changed by one nation than can the mathemat- 
ics of the world be changed by a nation attempting to change the 
axiom of the multiplication table that twice 1 are 2 into twice 
1 are 4. 



16 

The scale of feet and inches on the stone or iron pier for mark- 
ing the rise and fall of the tides or the flow of rivers marks the 
depth of the surrounding water, no matter how much or how 
little there maj' be; so the standard of value measures the rise 
and fall in the value of all commodities by the number of grains 
of gold which are required in payment. But the value in the 
grain of gold itself, so long as it is the standard, can no more vary 
than can the inches in the feet of the scale on the stone or iron 
pier. If it does, then it is no longer the standard of value, and the 
value in commodities would be measured by something else. 

ONE STANDARD OF VALUE. 

For a money standard of value the world might have selected 
some other metal, or it might have placed a different value on a 
grain of gold. But as that has not been done, any attempt to 
change it now would be like an attempt to change the mathematics 
of the world. There can be but one real standard of value in use 
in the same nation at the same time, no matter what may be in 
use as money. All attempts to fix a double standard, as it is 
called, has always required more or less legislation to keep both 
in circulation. "While changes in alloy and relative weights have 
been resorted to for that purpose, the value in the grain of gold 
itself has remained unchanged. 

Congress in 1853 changed all the silver coins of less denomma- 
tion than the dollar frona being proportionate parts of 412^ grains 
of standard silver to proportionate parts of 385 grains and a frac- 
tion, and fixed the legal tender for all silver at §5, which continued 
until 1873. The changes in legislation in 1834, 1853. and in 1873 
were all made in order to keep a double standard, by keeping sil- 
ver circulating on a parity with gold as a money metal. 

Hamilton, in his report as Secretary of the Treasury on the 
establishment of a mint in 1791, said: 

As long as gold, either from its intrinsic superiority as a metal, from its 
rarity, or from the prejudices of mankind, retains so considerable a preemi- 
nence in value over silver as it has heretofore had, a natural consequence of 
this seems to be that its condition will be more stationary. The revolutions, 
therefore, which may take place in the comparative value of gold and silver 
will be changes in the state of the latter rather than that of the former. One 
consequence of overvaluing either metal in respect to the other is the ban- 
ishment of that which is undervalued. There is scarcely any point m the 
economy of national affairs of greater moment than thj uniform preserva- 
tion of the intrinsic value of the money unit. On this the security and steady 
value of property essentially depends. 

This declaration of Hamilton applies to all time and to all 
nations. _ , . , , ^ _ 

The standard of value in the deahngs of mankind must be a fix- 
ture. Otherwise, how could agreements be made for future exe- 
cution? If it is proposed to buy cloth of the merchant for future 
delivery, how could the merchant fix a price per yard if he could 
not tell wdiat the length of the yardstick by which it must be 
measured would be at the time of delivery? If there were two 
yardsticks fixed by local law different in number of inches, then, 
of course, it would have to be specified which should be used. 
But if all mankind consented and tacitly agreed that the space 
measured by 36 inches would be a yard in all the dealings of 
mankind which were to be settled by measureuiont. that would 
be a standard of length which nobody woald take into account .^s 
liable tovary,and whatever local legislation thoremi-ht be would 
only relate to adapting othi^r things to it. So with the world s 
2612 



17 

standard of value in gold. All legislation has been only in rela- 
tion to Its debt paying, and to adapting other things to it in debt 
paying, or m exchangeable value. 

As gold possesses all the requisites for a money standard of 
value and is m every way preferable as a money metal, there can 
not possibly be any objection to making it the standard of value 
in all commercial nations, provided that as standard money of 
ultimate redemption there would be enough of it in the world 
for the world's business, and that there would be a reasonable 
probabihty that its annual increase in production would be suffi- 
cient for any increase there might be in the world's business trans- 
actions. Whether that would be possible depends upon the rela- 
tive production of gold and silver in the past, and the present 
annual production of gold, and its probable production for the 
future. 

The world's annual production of gold alone now exceeds the 
annual production of both gold and silver twenty years ago or for 
any time previous to that. The world's coinage of gold alone into 
money for the three years ending with December 31, 1895, was 
$691,053,047. an average annual coinage of $230,350,683, being in 
round numbers $5,000,000 larger than the average annual coinage 
of both gold and silver from 1878 to 1888. The world's coinage of 
^^no/^^'-^ ^"'^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ "^^® y^^^^ ^^om 1878 to 1888 was 
$3^033, <3o,461, being an average annual coinage of $335,969,495, 
which is $4,381,187 less than the average annual coinage of gold 
alone for the three 5^ears ending with 1895. 

As neither gold nor silver are consumed, and as they are inde- 
structible by fire or floods, all the gold and silver produced since 
the beginning of time is to-day in the keeping of mankind, except 
what may have been used in the arts and in manufactures, and 
the little that may have been lost in use. 

Dr. Soetbeer's tables show that if the mints of all nations had 
been closed m 1850 to the coinage of silver into money, except 
what was then m existence, the world's annual production of gold 
since that time, as shown by these statistics of its production 
would have been more than sufficient in standard money— i e ' 
money of ultimate redemption— for the world's business, ius't as 
It has been conducted from that time to this. And the annual 
production of gold at the rate of its production since 1891 would be 
sufficient m standard money for any probable increase in the 
world s business for the future. 

For the year 1850. the beginning of the great increase in gold, 
the world s production was $36,393,000, and that was double the 
production ot any previous year. For the year 1840 the world's 
production was $13,484,000, an increase in annual production in 
the ten years from 1840 to 1850 of $33,909,000. The world's entire 
gold production for twenty years preceding 1850 was $498,769 000 
being an average annual production of $34,938,450. But the in- 
crease m the annual production of gold in the ten years immedi- 
fi^^o^^noo^l"?^ ^^-'^ having been $33,909,000, add that amount to 
the i>34,938 4o0. average annual production for the twenty years 
would make $47,647,450. Call it, in round numbers, $50,000,000 
annual production of gold required for the world's business in 
stanclard money of ultimate redemption in 1850, in addition to 
the silver money then in use. That would be an amount in an- 
nual production more than three times greater than any year 
belore 1840, and more than double any year previous to 1850. 

2612 3 



18 

Til 'n multiply $50,000,000 annual production by forty-five, the 
number of years from 1«51 to 1895, inclusive, would make the sum 
of S'3, 250, 000, 000 in gold production required in standard money 
for the world's business for the forty-five years from 1851 to and 
including 1895. 

world's supply of silver greater than demand. 

When silver reached an anniial production in 1860 of $37,618,000, 
its market price began to fall. In 1870 it had fallen 3Jr cents per 
ounce below its price in 1859. In 1870, as I have already stated, 
the mints of all nations were open to the free coinage of silver just 
as they had been for years before, so that the closing of the mints 
could not have effected the fall in price. Silver continued to de- 
cline in market price and was 6 J cents an ounce less in 1873 than 
in 1859, and it never regained its market price of 1859 or 1870, not- 
withstanding the purchase by the Government for a number of 
years of substantially the entire silver prodviction of American 
mines. But it continued to decline in all the markets of the world, 
until now it is less than one-half the price it sold for in 1870. The 
world's annual production of silver, therefore, had reached a supply 
before 1870 beyond the world's demand for its use, otherwise it 
would not have fallen steadily in market price for the ten years 
after 1859 and before the closing of any mint. This fact indicates 
that an annual production of silver of about $37,000,000 was all 
that the world's business required in 1870, for demand and supply 
regulate the market price of every product of labor. 

The entire production of silver in the world for the twenty years 
preceding 1870 was, coinage value, $879,435,000, being an average 
annual production for that period of $43,971,750. Call it in round 
numbers $44,000,000. The decline in market value of silver from 
1859 to 1870 of 3i cents an ounce, which it never regained, is con- 
clusive, as I have already stated, that the world's production of 
silver had then in annual production reached, if it had not already 
passed, the limit required by the world in silver for its business 
transactions. But whether it had or not, that was the world's en- 
tire production for the twenty years. The increase since that time 
in the facilities for communication, the lessening of time and the 
cheapening in expense of transportation, would seem to render 
unnecessary any considerable increase of annual production in 
order to meet any increase there might have been in the world's 
business. 

It is obvious that the world's increased facilities for doing busi- 
ness since 1870 have been much greater than the world's increase 
in population since that time. But call the average annual pro- 
duction of silver required for the world's business after 1870 in 
round numbers $44,000,000, which is a larger annual production 
than for any year before that time. Multiply this average annual 
production by twenty-five, the number of years from 1870 to 1895, 
inclusive, would make a sum- of $1,100,000,000 as the amount of 
silver re(iuired from 1870 to and including 1895. To that amount 
add the entire production of silver from 1S51 to 1870 of $879,435,000, 
making a total sum of $1,979,435,000, which would be what the 
world's business would have required in silver production, fa-om 
1851 to 1895, for its business transactions just as they were con- 
ducted during that period. On this basis of calculation the world 
would have required in standard money for nil its business trans- 
actions of both gold and silver a production in these forty-five 
years from 1850 to 1893 of $4,239,435,000. 
261Z 



19 



GOLD ENOtJGH FOR THE WORLD'S BUSINESS. 

The gold production of the world alone for this period from 
1850 to and including 1895 was $5,632,530,100. So for these forty- 
five years from 1850 to 1895 if there had been no silver money in 
circulation except as subsidiary coin, there would have been a 
surplus in the world's production of gold of $1,393,095,100 over and 
above settling in gold the balances in the worlds current business 
just in the way it whs conducted. This $1,393,095,100 is the amount 
in gold production since 1850 over and above the world's biTsiness 
requirements for this period, in standard money of ultimate re- 
demption, which might have been used additionally in the arts and 
maniif actures, or to meet any unforeseen contingency in the worlds 
business. 

The increase in the world's production of gold, therefore, for the 
last twenty-five years shows conclusively that there is gold enough 
in the world for standard money— that is, money of ultimate re- 
demption—for the world's business, without silver at all, except in 
subsidiary coin. With the present commercial value of silver in 
the markets of the world, and with the relative annual production 
of gold and silver, if there shall be no agreement with leading com- 
mercial nations for the use of silver as a money metal, then the great 
question to settle in our monetary policy will be whether we shall 
have a gold standard with silver circulating in subsidiary coin, just 
as we always had it after the time Jefferson suspended the coinage 
of silver dollars in 1806, until the coinage of silver dollars was re- 
sumed in 1878, or whether we shall have a single silver standard 
without any gold in circulation as money. For, as proven by the 
experience of all nations through all time, there can be no such thing 
as money coins, circulating at the same time in the same nation, 
coined at a ratio of value to each other differing materially from 
the commercial value of the metals out of which they are coined, 
without a specific government guaranty, or some arrangement 
for their redemption at their denominational value. 
2612 



